The Pension AppealMay 19, 2010 Federal government unions and representative associations (plaintiffs) were back in court on April 19 to pursue the issue of the 30 billion dollar pension fund grab.The plaintiffs’ legal counsel were first to present their legal submission. Legal counsel provided an historical summary of the facts, the impact of Bill C78, and the grounds where they believed the trial judge erred in his decision.The plaintiffs’ counsel re-asserted their fundamental position that the actuarial amortized surplus of the 90's was built on contributions that must remain in the superannuation account. There is a legal interest surrounding the surplus issue.Legal counsel for the plaintiffs respectfully submitted and argued that the Trial Judge erred in the following areas:1) Superannuation account is not assets;
2) Trial Judge acknowledged only that there was a separate account - no separate fund;
3) Trial Judge also erred in that he did not declare that all contributions must remain in the account.Legal counsel for the plaintiffs devoted a good portion of time arguing that the superannuation account was real assets and that the employer breached its fiduciary duty when they allowed the surplus contributions to be used to reduce the debt. Argument - Legal Counsel for the Attorney General (AG)Legal counsel for the AG raised many arguments, the principle one being that the plaintiffs’ position is premised on an interpretation that Parliament intended to give an interest and benefit beyond what is inscribed in the legislation itself. Legal counsel for the AG also submitted the Court of Appeal should not interfere with the decision of the Trial Court based on judicial principles established by the Supreme Court. ConclusionThe Court took the matter under advisement and will issue a decision in due course. As is usually the case, no timeline was provided. We will keep you informed of developments in this matter as they occur.