In this case the Federal Court of Appeal considered whether an entitlement to remuneration based on a per diem rate established in advance is a “fixed or ascertainable stipend or remuneration” within the context of the Canada Pension Plan, when it is not possible to determine in advance how many days of service will be required. The Court held that such remuneration meets that definition.
By the combined operation of ss. 2 (definition of “office”) and 6 of the Canada Pension Plan and s. 24 of the Canada Pension Plan Regulations a member of the Ontario Judicial Appointments Committee is engaged in pensionable employment if that position carries the entitlement to a “fixed or ascertainable stipend or remuneration.” Having acknowledged that there is inconsistent case law on the subject, Sharlow J.A. determined that there is “nothing in the language of the definition of “office" read in its statutory context, that justifie[d] the Court in interpreting the phrase “fixed or ascertainable” to require an advance determination of the total remuneration for a particular year.” Sharlow J.A. thus concluded that “a legal entitlement to a per diem rate of remuneration established in advance is sufficiently “fixed or ascertainable” to meet the statutory test.”
November 16, 2011
Link to Decision
Rebecca Crangle & Alexa Mingo
*
No comments:
Post a Comment