Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Alain Mayrand claimed entitlement to a lifetime RSR pension reversible to his spouse, but the court found he had contractually chosen a 10-year fixed-term plan instead.
• Central to the dispute was whether a checkmark in the margin of the retirement choice form constituted a valid selection of Option 4 (lifetime pension) or merely a notation of interest.
• Both the written form and the employee's handwritten confirmation indicated Option 9 (10-year term), which the court found more probative than the employee's oral testimony.
• Administrative errors in annual pension statements issued from 2017 onward incorrectly described the RSR as a lifetime benefit, but the court held these created no new contractual rights.
• The employer was found not to have breached its duty of good faith or its obligation of information, as the employee failed to verify the pension amounts despite a significant discrepancy of approximately 40% from lifetime pension rates.
• Damages claims of $25,000 each by the employee and his spouse were rejected, as the financial stress they experienced stemmed from the lawful cessation of payments, not from any fault of the employer.

Facts of the case

Alain Mayrand worked for Aon Consulting Canada for 14 years, from January 1996 until his retirement in January 2011, where he held the position of Senior Vice-President of Commercial Operations for Quebec. In December 2010, following a disagreement with the president of Aon Consulting services in spring 2020 — which had prompted Mr. Mayrand to give one year's notice of departure in July 2020 — the employer proposed advancing his retirement to January 2011, offering the equivalent of a six-month notice payment through July 2011. This offer was made in the context of the then-ongoing merger between Aon and Hewitt.

Upon retirement, Mr. Mayrand selected his pension options under two plans: a base Registered Pension Plan (RPA) and a Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (RSR), the latter covering approximately 30 senior executives. Under the RPA, he chose a monthly benefit of $3,101.97, indexed for life and reversible at 60% to his spouse, Diane Langlois-Mayrand, upon his death. Under the RSR, he received $10,254.12 per month for a period of 10 years, from January 2011 to December 2020. Beginning in January 2021, the employer ceased RSR payments on the basis that the 10-year term had expired.

Mr. Mayrand contested the cessation of payments. In his original claim, he sought a lifetime RSR pension of $10,254.12 per month, reversible to his spouse. He later amended his claim to seek a lifetime reversible pension of $6,383.22 per month — corresponding to Option 4 of the nine available RSR choices — and invoked unjust enrichment, arguing he had been overpaid $3,870.90 per month for 10 years, totalling $464,508, and sought to offset that amount through prescription and an alleged inexcusable error by the employer. Mr. Mayrand and his spouse also each claimed $25,000 in non-pecuniary damages for stress and inconvenience, alleging the employer had misled them and breached its obligation of good faith.

Contractual terms at issue

The RSR form presented Mr. Mayrand with nine options, ranging from lifetime reversible pensions (Options 1 through 7, with monthly amounts between $6,068 and $6,383) to fixed-term arrangements. Option 9 provided for $10,254.12 per month over a 10-year period. The form required the employee to check a box beside his chosen option and to confirm the selection in handwriting beside his signature. The completed form showed an "X" in the checkbox for Option 9 and the numeral "9" written by hand next to Mr. Mayrand's signature.

Mr. Mayrand argued that a small checkmark in the right-hand margin beside Option 4 reflected his true choice. The employer countered that it had fulfilled its contractual obligation by paying $10,254.12 per month for ten years as selected, and that no payment had been made in error and no further obligation remained.

Court's reasoning and analysis

The court applied the civil law standard of proof by preponderance of evidence, noting that an alleged fact must be not only possible but probable. After reviewing the evidence, the court rejected Mr. Mayrand's account on several grounds.

First, the court found that Mr. Mayrand had made his retirement choices freely and with full information on December 15, 2010. He was a senior professional in financial services, familiar with pension plans, and sat on multiple boards of directors. The forms included a telephone number for assistance, which he did not use, and there was no evidence that his consent had been vitiated.

Second, the court found that Mr. Mayrand failed to discharge his burden of proving he had chosen Option 4. The checkmark in the right margin was more consistent with notations of interest rather than a final election. Notably, Mr. Mayrand had placed two margin checkmarks beside Options 1 and 4 for the RPA as well, yet ultimately confirmed Option 4 for that plan with both an "X" and a handwritten confirmation — suggesting the margin marks were preliminary. The court found it implausible that he would have acted differently when completing the RSR form on the same day.

Third, the court found that the employer had not misled Mr. Mayrand or breached its duty of good faith. Over the 10-year payment period, Mr. Mayrand received $10,254.12 per month — approximately 40% more than any of the lifetime reversible options — without once querying the amount. The annual pension of $123,049.44 from the RSR alone was substantial relative to his 2010 salary of $200,899.96 (including bonuses). Combined with his RPA pension of $37,223.64 per year, his total pension income was $160,272.64 annually, representing approximately 80% of his salary for 14 years of service. The court held that a prudent and diligent retiree would have verified such amounts and raised any discrepancies with the employer.

Fourth, the court addressed the employer's admitted administrative error. Beginning in 2017, annual statements incorrectly described the RSR as a lifetime benefit reversible to Mr. Mayrand's spouse. The court found that this error created no new legal rights. The statements expressly stated they conferred no rights and that plan terms prevailed at all times, and invited the employee to contact the employer if any data was incorrect. Mr. Mayrand testified he had not read those notices because they were in small print — a position the court found difficult to reconcile with his education and professional experience. No causal link could be established between the administrative error and the alleged harm, as the financial hardship experienced by Mr. Mayrand and his spouse upon cessation of payments resulted from the lawful expiry of the 10-year term he had chosen, not from any fault of the employer. Only direct damages are compensable under Quebec civil law, and the stress attributed to the end of payments was at most an indirect consequence of the administrative error.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court dismissed the claim in its entirety. Aon Canada Inc. was the successful party. The court found that the employer had respected its contractual obligations by paying $10,254.12 per month for 10 years, that no payment had been made in error, and that no restitution was owed in either direction. The claims for $25,000 each in non-pecuniary damages by Mr. Mayrand and Ms. Langlois-Mayrand were also rejected. No exact monetary award was granted in favour of either party. Notably, given that the employer's admitted administrative error in the annual statements had caused some confusion and may have contributed to the litigation, the court exercised its judicial discretion to award no costs against the plaintiffs.