Does Saunders v Vautier apply to the case of a modern pension plan?

Bastarache J., writing for the concurring minority, agreed that Saunders v. Vautier did not apply to the case of a modern pension plan. However, he was of the view that the Superintendent did not have a general discretion to terminate a pension plan: There is no provision in the PBSA for plan beneficiaries to terminate a pension plan. Furthermore, there is no provision in the PBSA for any party (employer, administrator, trustee, Superintendent, plan members, or other beneficiaries) to terminate the Trust under which the pension fund contributions are held as security for the payment of plan benefits, prior to, and independent of, the termination of the Plan. Beneficiaries may request that the Superintendent exercise his discretionary powers under s. 29(2), but the Superintendent’s power to terminate a plan is available only where the stipulated pre-conditions are met. The Superintendent does not have a general discretion to terminate pension plans. Rogers, supra, paragraph 84

As for the application of Saunders v. Vautier, Bastarache J. wrote, referring to a defined benefits pension plan, such as is in issue here, that: … The employer assumes the risk in such a plan; when interest rates and investment returns are high, a surplus will be realized, and when the economy changes, unfunded liabilities will often result. The goal is to require contributions by the employer that are sufficient to provide the defined benefits over long periods of time in spite of market fluctuations. To permit termination of the Plan when a surplus has been realized independently of the terms of the Plan is not consistent with its object or the applicable statutory regime. The contract clearly contemplated a continuing plan supported by a permanent Fund; segregation of the Fund by “closing” the Premier Plan was not possible. It is therefore an error to infer that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier can in effect create a manner of realizing on the actuarial surplus (the Fund) in violation of the terms of the Plan. In the case of this pension Plan, absolute entitlement to the surplus would only occur once the surplus becomes real, that is, once the Plan and Trust had been terminated. Rogers, supra, paragraph 90