604-689-7555 or 1-800-689-2322
VIEW ACTIVE CLASS ACTIONS

Class Action Updates

July 10, 2018

Class Counsel attended before the BC Court on June 25, 2018 for the application to approve settlements with National Bank, Visa and Mastercard and are…

June 21, 2018

On June 15, 2018, the court approved an order finalizing the distribution of settlement funds in this class action. The settlement distribution has now been…

May 15, 2018

Settlements totaling $290,000 were reached with Trillium Health Care Products Inc., Vita Health Products Inc. and Procter & Gamble Inc. The settlement funds were used…

REFERRALS
INFORMATION FOR LAWYERS LOOKING FOR LEGAL EXPERTISE IN BC AND CANADA

10. What is reliance risk?

Reliance risk has to do with whether a claimant made the decision to convert from the DB to the DC plan because they relied on what Teck Metals/Cominco and Towers told them.

One of the plaintiffs’ main arguments in this case was Teck Metals/Cominco and Towers made some misleading statements in encouraging people to convert to the DC plan. These statements are called “misrepresentations”.

The plaintiffs also argued that if Teck Metals/Cominco and Towers had not made these misrepresentations, fewer people would have converted their pensions. This is called “reliance” – each class member must have relied on the misrepresentations to be entitled to any money for their losses.

The law also requires people to act reasonably. In the context of misrepresentations, it has to be reasonable for a person to have relied on the misrepresentations.

If this lawsuit had gone to trial, each class member would have had to prove that they relied on the misrepresentations. This also means that each class member would have had to prove that (acting reasonably) they would not have converted their pensions if there had been no misrepresentations. This is the reliance risk – the risk that class members would not be able to prove that they relied on the misrepresentations.

Class Counsel concluded that it would have been easier for some class members to prove this than others. For instance, for a class member who was young in 1992, it was reasonable to decide to convert. That is because a young class member is more likely to change careers or employers before retiring, and there are benefits to being in a DC plan if you expect to change careers or employers. This will make it harder for young class members to prove that they reasonably relied on the misrepresentations.

In contrast, for a class member who was nearing retirement in 1992, converting was much less reasonable. It would have been easier for older class members to prove that they relied on the misrepresentations.

Posted in: Questions about the Settlement Agreement, Teck/Cominco Class Action FAQs

BACK TO TOP