Court sides with university in case of missing professor's pension

Widow reluctant to return $497,332 in pension monies
By Jim Bronskill
||Last Updated: 11/05/2019
Carleton University in Ottawa can reclaim almost $500,000 in pension payments to a professor who went missing before being found dead in the woods. Google Street View

OTTAWA (CP) — An Ottawa university can reclaim almost $500,000 in pension payments to a professor who went missing before being found dead in the woods near his home, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

George Roseme, a political science professor at Carleton University, was 77 and suffering from early-stage Alzheimer's disease when he disappeared in September 2007.

A six-day search of the area near Roseme's home in nearby west Quebec failed to locate him.

Roseme had signed a memorandum agreeing that his pension payments would cease with his death, rather than going to his heirs or estate.

When the university learned of Roseme's disappearance, Carleton informed Lynne Threlfall — his former partner, heir and recipient of the pension money as his property administrator — that it would cease payments.

The university was forced to reverse the decision after Threlfall pointed out that under Quebec law, Roseme was presumed to be alive for seven years after his disappearance or until there was proof of death.

In July 2013, Roseme's remains were discovered by a dog in the woods near his property, and a coroner's investigation concluded he had died in 2007.

Shortly afterward, the university went to court to recoup $497,332 in pension monies.

Threlfall unsuccessfully argued in Quebec Superior Court that she should not have to return the payments, given that Roseme's death had only recently been confirmed. A three-judge appeal panel upheld the decision against Threlfall, prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court.

In its 6-3 decision Thursday, the Supreme Court said the retirement plan ``unambiguously contemplated the termination of benefits upon Mr. Roseme's actual death'' and the legal basis for the payments from Carleton had evaporated, meaning they ``were made in error and in the absence of any debt.''

``Indeed, this is a clear example of a case in which failing to order restitution would allow one party (Ms. Threlfall) to retain an undue advantage.''

Add Comment

  • *
  • *
  • *
  • *