Docket: CACV2543 Meghann McGregor Appellant - v. -, 2014 SKCA 131

THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2014 SKCA 131 Date: 2014-12-09 Between: Docket: CACV2543 Meghann McGregor Appellant - and - Nathan Brock William Snell, Amanda Snell, Shaun Michael Robb and Danny Allan Robb Respondents Coram: Ottenbreit, Herauf and Ryan-Froslie JJ.A. Counsel: Kevin Mellor for the appellant Eric Marcotte for the respondent Appeal: From: 2014 SKQB 108 Heard: December 9, 2014 Disposition: Appeal dismissed

Written Reasons: December 12, 2014 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ottenbreit In Concurrence: The Honourable Mr.

Justice Herauf The Honourable Madam Justice Ryan-Froslie OTTENBREIT J.A. [ 1 ] This is an appeal by Meghann McGregor from the decision of the Chambers judge declaring that the Designation of Beneficiary form (the “Designation”) dated June 26, 2009, signed by James Snell, deceased, validly designated the respondents as his beneficiaries under the Saskatchewan Healthcare Employees’ Pension Plan (“SHEPP”). [ 2 ] When this appeal was heard we dismissed the appeal with costs to the respondents in the usual way.

These are the reasons for the dismissal. [ 3 ] James Snell executed the Designation setting out the four respondents’ names, addresses and dates of birth. Mr. Snell, however, put all four names on the first page of the Designation and did not indicate the relationship of the beneficiaries to him. As a result, the original Designation was sent back to him by SHEPP indicating that he had completed it incorrectly with instructions on how to properly complete the form and a follow-up letter because the corrected Designation had not been returned to SHEPP five months later. Mr. Snell never did return the Designation.

When he died, the original Designation was found torn in half as part of his personal possessions. [ 4 ] After Mr. Snell’s death, SHEPP, which had kept a copy of the Designation, initially treated it as valid and not as rejected. However, SHEPP later indicated the Designation was invalid for the reason that it did not accord with their policies and procedures in that there was one too many names on the first page and that the relationship of the beneficiaries to Mr.

Snell was not stated. [ 5 ] The Chambers judge declared the Designation to be valid because the SHEPP policy requirements to use a second page for the fourth beneficiary and state the relationship did nothing to advance the purpose of the Designation and was not relevant based on the provisions of The Pension Benefits Act, 1992 , SS 1992, c P-6.001 [ Act ], or the SHEPP text. He found that the purpose of the SHEPP policy was to ensure that the wishes of Mr. Snell were clearly identified and acted on. He found that the intention of Mr.

Snell was clearly expressed in the Designation and the discretion of the administrator of SHEPP to reject the Designation on the basis of irrelevant formalities or information could not impede the wishes of Mr. Snell. We are in substantial agreement with these reasons as elaborated on by the Chambers judge in his decision. [ 6 ] However, Ms. McGregor also argues that the presence of the torn Designation in Mr.

Snell’s personal effects and the fact that he did not return the original Designation, despite two letters from SHEPP respecting its completion, indicates that it was his intention to retain her as his beneficiary pursuant to a Designation of Beneficiary he had filed in 2000. The onus was on Ms. McGregor to establish that the 2009 Designation was invalid or had been revoked in accordance with the Act and the SHEPP text. Based on the evidence taken as a whole, we are satisfied the Chambers judge was correct that Ms. McGregor had not discharged that onus. [ 7 ] Ms.

McGregor’s appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents in the usual way.