Pensions & Benefits Law : Canada Pension & Benefits Lawyers & Attorneys : Osler Hoskin & Harcourt Law Firm: Post-Employment Benefits & Defined Benefit Plans : Toronto, New York

The Minister of Finance recently announced proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act creating a new vehicle, called an employee life and health trust (EL&H trust), through which employers can provide certain group benefits to their employees and former employees in a tax effective manner.

While many of the rules in the proposed amendments regarding EL&H trusts are similar to existing law and policy for health and welfare trusts (H&W trusts), there are a number of interesting new provisions, including the following: 

• Clearly setting out the timing for claiming a deduction for employer contributions to an EL&H trust in respect of employee benefits to be paid in a future tax year. Specifically, the portion of any pre-funding that relates to benefits payable in a future tax year may only be deducted in that future tax year.
• Permitting an EL&H trust to treat employee benefit payments as expenses and apply special rules to allow the carryback and carryforward of losses where the trust's expenses for a particular year exceed its revenue. (Under the current rules for H&W trusts, benefit payments in excess of the trust’s income for the year are treated as distributions of trust capital with no other income tax impact.) 
• Specifically addressing employer contributions to an EL&H trust by way of a promissory note and prescribe the timing for claiming deductions for payments of principal and interest under the note.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Hydro One confirmed that the Superintendent may use a “subset analysis” when assessing the “significance” of plan member terminations for purposes of ordering a partial plan wind-up. The impact of this decision may be limited, however, if the amendments to the Ontario Pension Benefits Act (PBA) wind-up provisions included in Bill 236 are passed.

Currently, s. 69(1)(d) of the PBA gives the Superintendent the discretion to order a partial plan wind-up if a “significant” number of plan members are terminated as a result of a business reorganization. In the past, cases have held that the “significance” inquiry may be conducted on one or both of the following two bases: the absolute number of terminations or a percentage of the total number of active plan members. The Hydro One case considered a third scenario: whether the Superintendent can carry out the “significance” analysis based on the number of terminated members falling within a defined subset of plan members.

In Hydro One, there were different categories of plan members based on whether or not they were represented by unions. The absolute number of terminations was 73. As a percentage, the terminations represented 2% of the total plan membership (4000) and 18% of the category at issue. Based on the latter test, the Financial Services Tribunal held that the number of terminations was significant. (PDF) The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Tribunal and the Divisional Court. Noting that the public policy and remedial objectives of the PBA require it to be given a “liberal interpretation”, and that the term “significant” is not defined under the PBA, the Court found that a flexible and contextual approach should be taken when assessing whether a “significant” number of plan members has been terminated, thereby triggering a partial wind-up order by the Superintendent. Not surprisingly, the Court concluded that a subset analysis was consistent with a the remedial nature of the PBA and the long line of authorities that have considered s. 69(1)(d).

The Hydro One case is likely one of the last disputes over the meaning of “significant” in s. 69(1)(d). The decision will continue to be relevant during the transition period while partial wind-ups are being phased out, but will ultimately be moot. (Under Bill 236, partial wind ups with an effective date prior to January 1, 2012 will be grandfathered, after which partial wind-ups will be eliminated.)

The elimination of partial wind-ups means that employers will no longer be required to distribute surplus out of the plan based on the test in s. 69(1)(d). However, the elimination of partial wind-ups is not a panacea. The trade off is that the other main benefit conferred on Ontario plan members by partial wind-ups – “grow in rights” – must in future be provided to all eligible involuntary terminations (other than for cause).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Pension Benefits Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 236) proposes to extend “grow-in rights” to all Ontario pension plan members whose employment is involuntarily terminated (other than for cause). While this measure was recommended in the Report of the Expert Commission on Pensions (the OECP Report) and comes as no surprise, it is one of the more controversial aspects of the Bill.

Currently, grow-in benefits are only available to members affected by a full or partial wind-up whose age plus years of total service equal at least 55. Such persons are entitled to any early retirement benefits provided under the plan that they would have “grown into” had both the plan and their employment continued until their early retirement date.

The Bill proposes to extend these benefits to all members who are involuntarily terminated by an employer (other than for cause) on and after January 1, 2012. Jointly sponsored pension plans and multi-employer pension plans may elect to opt out of this requirement.

This proposed change is part of a general initiative in the Bill to treat plan members uniformly regardless of the circumstances of their termination (i.e., whether they are terminated in the normal course or as part of a broader program). Such consistency is a worthwhile goal, since it makes little policy sense to provide this benefit to employees terminated in a special situation (e.g., plant shut down or other reorganization) but not those terminated in the normal course. But consistency of treatment among plan members could also have been achieved by abolishing mandatory grow-in rights (for those who had not yet met the eligibility requirements).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 9, 2009 the Ontario government announced the first stage of a multi-step process to reform the province’s occupational pension system – the Pension Benefits Amendment Act, 2009 (Bill 236). The next stage is scheduled to be released in the spring of 2010.

It appears that the government is taking its cue from the Arthurs Report released one year ago, and rolling out legislation that provides some fixes to problems that have plagued the Ontario pension industry since the current pension legislation was enacted in 1987. The stated goal of the Arthurs Report was to balance the interests of employees and employers. Bill 236 seems to be tracking the recommendations in the Arthurs Report quite closely. As a result, some changes will be welcomed by sponsors; however, the proposals also contain enhancements for plan members that will increase benefit costs.

Here is a summary of the Bill with some initial thoughts on its key provisions.

1.  Elimination of partial wind ups, introduction of immediate vesting and extension of “Rule of 55” grow-in benefits to all plan members whose employment is involuntarily terminated (other than for cause)

• Partial wind-ups would be eliminated except for those with an effective date prior to 2012 (according to the Technical Notes). Partial wind ups with an effective date prior to 2012 would be grandfathered.
• Starting January 1, 2012, “Rule of 55” grow-in benefits would be extended to all eligible members whose employment is terminated by the employer (other than for cause), in addition to being available on full wind-up of a pension plan. Multi-employer/jointly sponsored plans will be permitted to opt-out of this requirement.
• All accrued pension benefits (past and future) will vest immediately.

2.  Forced annuitization eliminated

• Plan administrators would not be required to purchase life annuities for pension benefits related to partial wind-ups in progress. According to the Technical Notes, to take advantage of this amendment, provision must be made for the distribution of any surplus.

3. Facilitate plan mergers and asset transfers while protecting member benefit security

• Inter-plan transfers would no longer require the replication of exporting plan benefits,but the transfer could not result in a reduction of the commuted value of members’ benefit entitlements.
• Asset transfers between plans would continue to require the Superintendent's consent.
• If the transaction involves the transfer of pension entitlements from one employer's plan to another employer's plan, plan administrators could agree to give individual plan members the option of transferring or not transferring their pension benefit to the successor plan. Bargaining agents could also exercise this choice on behalf of their members.
• Similar to Quebec, a portion of any surplus related to the assets being transferred from the previous employer's plan would be transferred to the successor plan. The amount of the surplus that must be transferred will be prescribed in the regulations.
• Any entitlement to surplus on full wind-up of a plan would remain unless the pension benefits are fully annuitized such that the plan has no continuing obligations. 
• Until July 1, 2013, pension plans affected by past restructurings could enter into agreements that would allow current individual plan members to consolidate their pension benefits in a single plan through an asset transfer based on value. This could certainly benefit members whose pensions are currently split up between two plans; however, the cost of consolidating benefits under one plan could be significant. This could also be noteworthy for plan members in the broader public sector who have changed plans due to privatizations.

4. Increase transparency and access to information for plan members and pensioners 

• Pensioners (retired members) would be defined separately from "former members", and their right to participate in Pension Advisory Committees and receive specified information about their plan would be set out.
• Pension Advisory Committees would be easier to establish, allowing members and retired members to monitor plans on an advisory basis. Cooperation from plan administrators would be required.
• Plans would be required to give all members, including retired members, information about the funded status of the plan.
• Plan administrators and the regulator would be required to provide copies of specified documents, electronically or by mail, on written request.
• With certain limited exceptions, all plan amendments would require advance notice to members, retired members, and former members before registration. This would replace the current "adverse amendment" rules which only require plan administrators to inform affected members if an amendment would reduce future pension accruals or would otherwise adversely affect their pension rights.

5. Enhanced regulatory oversight

• The Superintendent would be granted the power to make interim orders in specified circumstances, for example, to order special valuations when there is evidence that a plan is at risk. The other example given in the Technical Notes indicates this power could be used (after partial wind-ups are eliminated) to order an employer to file a report after an event which significantly reduced membership in a plan. These orders would not be subject to the Notice of Proposal process and could be appealed directly to the Financial Services Tribunal.
• The Superintendent would be granted the necessary power to approve arrangements under the federal Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

6. Improve plan administration and reduce compliance costs

• A number of changes are intended to clarify and assist in plan administration. For example, the filing of specified documents could be waived for certain types of pension plans, and the existing time limit for refunding employer pension contributions made in error would be extended.
• Members would also receive the right in specified circumstances to transfer certain pension monies, for example, excess contributions, small pension payouts, to a registered retirement savings plan or a registered retirement income fund.

7. Surplus sharing settlements not subject to historical plan terms

• On a full plan wind up, employers would have the option of establishing legal entitlement to the surplus or entering into a surplus sharing agreement (similar to the federal system). The Technical Notes indicate that if a surplus sharing agreement is entered into, no review of historical plan documents would be required to obtain regulatory approval, provided the agreement complies with the existing membership consent and certain other requirements. This would eliminate member and sponsor concerns relating to compliance with s. 79(3)(b) of the current legislation where an employer enters into a surplus sharing agreement on a full plan wind up.
• It appears, however, that the “old regime” will continue to apply to surplus distributions on partial wind-ups as long as they last. This is ironic and extremely unfortunate. Arguably the clearest example of a consensus point among member and sponsor stakeholders was the removal of the requirement under s.79(3)(b) that the Superintendent determine that the plan provides for payment of surplus to the employer. Lobby efforts by members and sponsor representatives to address this concern (which has in the past caused expensive delays and added unnecessary uncertainty and complexity to the implementation of surplus sharing distributions) have been ongoing for many years prior to the Arthurs report. This aspect of the reform package is difficult to reconcile from a policy, practice or legal perspective and should be fixed before the Bill becomes law.

8. Phased retirement

• As announced in the 2009 Budget, pension plans would be permitted to offer phased retirement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On November 5, 2009, Bill 48 (PDF) received Royal Assent and amended the Nova Scotia Pension Benefits Act to accommodate phased retirement.

Phased retirement occurs when a plan member receives a portion of their pension, while at the same time continuing to accrue pension benefits under the same plan. The amendments to the Nova Scotia Act permit an employer to offer phased retirement to eligible plan members by allowing payments of up to 60% of an accrued pension without having to retire and with or without a reduction in their work hours.

This announcement brings Nova Scotia pension legislation in line with other jurisdictions, such as the Federal, Alberta (PDF), British Columbia, Quebec, and Saskatchewan (PDF) governments, which have adopted similar legislation and/or policies to allow phased retirement.  Based on the Ontario Budget announcement on March 26, 2009, it is expected that Ontario pension legislation will also be amended to permit similar phased retirement programs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Nova Scotia’s private defined benefit pension plans are set to benefit from an extension of the time required to make their plans fully solvent.  

Under the new regulations recently announced by the Department of Labour and Workforce Development, plan administrators will have ten years to fund solvency deficiencies, as opposed to the normal five years, with permission from plan members.  The regulations apply to plans reporting underfunding between December 30, 2008 and January 2, 2011.  The regulations also permit plan administrators to file a new valuation in order to pay previous funding shortfalls over the new ten-year period.

The announcement follows the recommendation of the report of the Nova Scotia Pension Review Panel (PDF) to lengthen the amortization for funding solvency deficits from five to ten years. It also comes on the heels of temporary solvency funding relief announced in other provinces, including Ontario, where pension plan administrators can extend the amortization period to ten years for new solvency deficiencies only, with the consent of members and former members.

The new regulations are not yet available, but are expected to be incorporated into the Nova Scotia Pension Benefits Regulations shortly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On October 21, 2009, the Québec government published amending regulations to complement the new measures for funding defined benefit pension plans that were introduced in the Supplemental Pension Plans Act by Bill 30 (PDF) (as amended by Bill 68) (PDF) (the Bill 30 Regulations).

The Bill 30 Regulations include the following:

• provisions providing for the establishment of a reserve to increase benefit security (including the conditions for calculating a provision for adverse deviation);
• clarification of the rules for using letters of credit and the requirements for actuarial valuations; and
• harmonization of the provisions relating to the partition of benefits between spouses in a civil union.

The Bill 30 Regulations will come into force on January 1, 2010. However, some measures such as the provision for adverse deviation must be reflected in actuarial valuations as at December 31, 2008 or later if an employer elects to avail itself of one or more of the funding relief measures introduced by Bill 1 (PDF) and the related regulation (PDF).

Since the Bill 1 regulation has not yet been adopted, the Régie des rentes du Québec announced that the deadline for submitting an actuarial valuation as at December 31, 2008 to the Régie has been extended until December 31, 2009 (instead of September 30, 2009).

Now that the legislative framework for the new funding scheme is largely in place, it will be interesting to see whether it will significantly strengthen the funding of defined benefit plans while slowing the gradual decrease in defined benefit plan coverage.

Traduction en français:

Le gouvernement du Québec a publié, le 21 octobre 2009, un règlement qui complète les nouvelles mesures de financement des régimes à prestations déterminées qui ont été introduites dans la Loi sur les régimes complémentaires de retraite par la Loi 30 (PDF) (telles qu’ajustées par la Loi 68) (PDF) (le « Règlement »).

Le Règlement prévoit notamment les points suivants:

• les éléments qui permettent la constitution d’une réserve destinée à accroître la sécurité des prestations (incluant les modalités de calcul de la provision pour écarts défavorables);
• les exigence en matière d’utilisation de lettres de crédit et d’évaluation actuarielles; et
• l’harmonisation des dispositions relatives au partage des droits entre conjoints unis civilement.

Le Règlement entrera en vigueur le 1er janvier 2010. Toutefois, certaines mesures telles que la constitution d’une provision pour écarts défavorables devront être reflétées dans les évaluations actuarielles dont la date est postérieure au 30 décembre 2008 si un employeur choisit de se prévaloir d’une ou plusieurs des mesures d’allégement prévues dans la Loi 1 (PDF) et son règlement d’application (PDF).

Comme ce règlement d’application n’est pas encore été adopté, la Régie des rentes du Québec a annoncé que les comités de retraite qui doivent remettre une évaluation actuarielle au 31 décembre 2008 ont jusqu'au 31 décembre 2009 (au lieu du 30 septembre) pour le faire.

Maintenant que le cadre législatif du nouveau régime de financement est presque entièrement en place, il sera intéressant de voir si les nouvelles règles renforceront la sécurité des prestations tout en aidant à enrayer la diminution graduelle du nombre de régimes à prestations déterminées.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link