Court Favors Plaintiff in Pension Class Action Against Memorial University

Over 250 pensioners of MUN will benefit from a court order last week allowing them to proceed as a class action against their former employer.  The pensioners allege that MUN is in breach of contract and of fiduciary duty in cutting pension benefits.  The case is called Acreman v. MUN.

The decision is a workmanlike effort which builds on established Newfoundland jurisprudence such as Rideout v. Health Labrador Corp. and Doucette v. Eastern Regional Integrated Health Authority, in each of which Ches Crosbie Barristers was privileged to obtain certification and settlement for injured class members.  For example, the decision quotes Doucette that the litigation plan is only a preliminary projection and subject to adjustment:  "It is not to be unexpected that a litigation plan may undergo changes as the matter progresses" (para. 86).

If there is anything new and noteworthy in Acreman, it is the court's rejection of the gloss on the "plain and obvious" test for showing a cause of action, which was attempted by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in Hoffman v. Montsanto.  In this case, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal oddly stated that the representative plaintiff must satisfy the court that the pleadings disclose "an apparently authentic or genuine" cause of action. 

Whatever was intended by the apparently "more stringent test" in the Hoffman case, it was rejected.  The court, quite properly, was of the view that the appropriate test is the unadorned "plain and obvious" test explained by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hollick and applied by the Newfoundland court in Wheadon v. Bayer Inc., in which we also had the pleasure of representing the plaintiffs.  Exactly right! 

All in all, a worthy addition to a distinguished body of class action jurisprudence in Newfoundland and Labrador, which makes us the leader in the class action field, certainly in Atlantic Canada, and elsewhere as well.