FSCO Policy Outlines New Requirements Regarding Pension Plan Records

Earlier this year, we did a post on the Financial Services Commission of Ontario’s (FSCO) consultation policy on pension record-keeping . FSCO has recently released the final version of this policy, “Management and Retention of Pension Plan Records by the Administrator” (the Policy).

The Policy is important reading for pension plan administrators as it imposes a new requirement to create a document management and retention policy. It also contains requirements impacting other documents such as pension plan services agreements and even purchase and sale agreements. The Policy applies to all plans, big and small, defined benefit and defined contribution, single employer and multi-employer, etc.

Continue Reading...

New FSCO Policy on Distribution of Partial Wind Up Benefits Remaining in Plan and not Annuitized

On December 2, 2009, the Ontario Financial Services Tribunal released its decision in Imperial Oil which held that pension administrators are not required to purchase annuities in respect of partial wind up benefits remaining in the plan following member portability elections. On June 30, 2010, FSCO posted a new policy (effective March 10, 2010) confirming the result in Imperial Oil, and outlining the procedure to be followed regarding the “distribution” of such benefits by transfer to the ongoing portion of the plan when the administrator chooses not to distribute by way of annuity purchase.

Continue Reading...

Amendments to Federal DB Funding and Plan Investment Rules Finalized and Regulator Responds

On June 25, 2010 the federal government announced that it finalized the amendments to the defined benefit funding provisions and the federal investment rules, which it had released in draft form for comment earlier this year. Most of these amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Regulations, 1985 come into force on July 1, 2010.

Continue Reading...

FSCO Moves to Electronic Filing of AIRs

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario announced that effective March 31, 2010 pension plan administrators will be able to file Annual Information Returns (AIRs) electronically. The electronic filing method will be optional in that plan administrators will still be permitted to file AIRs in paper format should they so chose.

CAPSA Consultation Update - Prudence Standard in Pension Plan Funding and Investments

As I discussed in an earlier post, the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities recently published a consultation paper entitled “The Prudence Standard and the Roles of the Plan Sponsor and Plan Administrator in Pension Plan Funding and Investment” (PDF). The comment period for the paper – which provides helpful guidance to pension plan sponsors and administrators regarding the regulators’ view of best practices for pension plan funding and investment – has been extended to April 30, 2010.

FSCO Attempts to Address Delays in Processing DB Plan Applications, but Legislative Reform Also Required

In January 2010, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) released a consultation paper outlining proposals to streamline the regulatory review process for defined benefit (DB) applications (PDF). The proposals outlined in the most recent paper – an earlier consultation process had taken place in the spring of 2009 – are designed to lead to more accurate and timely processing of applications involving DB pension plans (including applications in respect of surplus withdrawals, wind ups, asset transfers, refunds of employer overpayments and refunds of member contributions).

The paper proposes several solutions to address problems inherent in processing DB applications:

  • Incomplete applications: FSCO will create more standardized applications, and a specific process will be followed by FSCO to address non-compliant or incomplete applications. This is a welcome reform, in that FSCO is proposing that meetings or conference calls would be held to discuss incomplete applications. Currently, incomplete applications are often dealt with through an exchange of written correspondence between FSCO and the applicant, which can continue over months or even years.
  • Resolution of prior transactions: FSCO will not delay processing a more recent application if a prior pending transaction does not significantly affect the subsequent application. This is also a welcome reform, since FSCO’s current practice is to delay processing an application if a prior application affecting the same pension plan is pending. If the pending application would have no direct bearing on the subsequent application, it makes sense for FSCO to process the subsequent application without delay.
Continue Reading...

FSCO Proposed Policy on Record Retention Will Impose New Obligations on Plan Administrators

If you are responsible for the day-to-day administration of a pension plan, you should take the time to review a consultation policy on record retention released by FSCO just before the holidays.

Why should you be concerned?

Because the consultation policy imposes new obligations on plan administrators that will affect the day-to-day operations of all pension plans in Ontario. These measures are framed as “recommendations” but since they embody what FSCO considers to be the prudent approach to records retention they are, in effect, requirements. The consultation paper does not differentiate between big and small employers. The expectation seems to be that all plan administrators will comply with the policy.

The key recommendation is a requirement to establish a written record management and retention policy, which must address a prescribed list of items. These items include: the types of plan documents that must be retained and their retention period, where the documents will be stored, how the documents can be accessed, treatment of private and confidential documents, the process for maintaining a back up of the documents, the process for monitoring the documents and many other matters. These issues are also supposed to be addressed in any agreements with custodians and third party administrators.

FSCO’s consultation policy also addresses retention periods. FSCO recommends keeping copies of “general plan records” indefinitely, even after a plan is wound up because there is always a risk that an error was made in the wind up report. FSCO also specifies the information administrators are expected to retain in respect of terminated plan members, and recommends that employers take steps to educate plan members on the need to keep their personal records up to date and to maintain the flow of communication with terminated members.

FSCO is looking for comments on the consultation policy. If you have concerns, comments or questions, you should let FSCO know – FSCO wants to hear from all stakeholders.

The deadline for comments is February 26, 2010.

CAPSA Releases Consultation Paper on Prudence Standard and Roles of Plan Sponsor and Administrator in Pension Plan Funding and Investment

The Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities (CAPSA) recently published a consultation paper entitled “The Prudence Standard and the Roles of the Plan Sponsor and Plan Administrator in Pension Plan Funding and Investment” (PDF). The paper provides helpful guidance to pension plan sponsors and administrators regarding the regulators’ view of best practices for pension plan funding and investment, including a summary of important legal concepts such as the “prudent person rule”, and a description of the differing roles of the plan sponsor and the plan administrator.

Emphasis on Funding and Investment Procedures

The paper places tremendous importance on the process to be followed by pension plan sponsors and administrators in relation to their pension plan funding and investment activities. A key element of this process is the "prudent person rule", which serves as the guiding principle for all investment decisions, and essentially requires that a pension plan administrator exercise the care, diligence and skill that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in dealing with the property of another person. In other words, the focus is on the methods followed by the administrator, and not simply on the result achieved.

According to the paper, it is essential that plan sponsors and administrators document their funding and investment procedures, as part of overall good governance, and in order to be able to satisfy the regulator in the event of a regulatory review. Evidence of the processes followed by the sponsor and administrator would also assist in putting forward a strong defence, should there be litigation over the pension plan’s funded status or the employer’s level of contributions.

Sponsor vs. Administrator Role: Which Activities Attract Fiduciary Duties?

The paper provides helpful insight into the regulators’ view regarding which aspects of pension funding and investment attract fiduciary duties and which do not. Activities that are required to be carried out by the plan sponsor in its capacity as such do not attract fiduciary duties, and decisions may be made based on the business’ best interests, subject to the obligations of good faith. On the other hand, activities that are required to be carried out by the plan administrator do attract fiduciary duties, and decisions must be made in the best interests of the plan and its members.

Generally, in single-employer pension plans, the employer has a dual role of plan sponsor and plan administrator, and the paper therefore describes which activities are to be performed by the sponsor (e.g., making necessary contributions to the fund) and which are to be performed by the plan administrator (e.g., investing the assets of the fund).

Interestingly, according to CAPSA’s paper, the establishment of a funding policy is a sponsor task. For example, a funding policy might set out the circumstances in which the sponsor will contribute amounts to the pension fund in excess of the minimum recommended by the actuary in the valuation. Prior to the publication of this paper, it was not always clear whether the regulators viewed that function as being part of the sponsor’s duties or the administrator’s duties. I note however that one of the specific issues on which CAPSA has asked for comments is the role of the plan administrator regarding the funding policy.

While not legally binding, the CAPSA paper provides a good summary of the regulators’ views on best practices in the area of pension funding and investment, as part of an overall pension governance strategy. After the consultation process, CAPSA plans to prepare three guidelines: 

  • best practices for funding policies;
  • best practices for investment policies; and 
  • examinations by pension regulators of funding and investment processes.

Comments on the consultation paper will be accepted by CAPSA until January 29, 2010.

The implications of the CAPSA paper will be discussed further at our upcoming pensions seminar on Wednesday, December 9th. 

Comments on OSFI's Draft DC Disclosure Guidelines Due by Year End

It is common knowledge that pension legislation was drafted with defined benefit pension plans in mind and does not deal adequately with defined contribution pension plans.  Until recently, the only regulatory guidance for DC plan sponsors was the CAPSA Guidelines for Capital Accumulation Plans (PDF) (CAP Guidelines).  Now DC plan sponsors will have another resource - the Disclosure Guideline for Defined Contribution Pension Plans (PDF) (OSFI Guidelines). 

The draft OSFI Guidelines apply directly to federally-regulatory plans so employers that sponsor DC plans that are registered with the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) (or who are thinking of converting their DB plan to DC) will need to pay particularly close attention to the OSFI Guidelines.  But in the regulatory vacuum that exists for DC plans in Canada, any guidance from a major regulator on DC plans is welcome, and DC plan sponsors in other jurisdictions will want to review the OSFI Guidelines for guidance as to what OSFI believes is "industry standard" for disclosure by DC plan sponsors.
 
The OSFI Guideline considers the topics which should be addressed in plan member booklets, and provides a helpful road map for plan administrators when drafting such booklets.  It sets out information regarding investment decisions, plan expenses, annual statements, plan amendments, and termination/retirement statements that should be provided to plan members, eligible employees and spouses.  The OSFI Guideline relies heavily on the CAP Guidelines, incorporating many of the specific provisions of the CAP Guidelines.
 
Not surprisingly, there is an emphasis on disclosure of risk.  A clear explanation of the nature of the DC plan and the impact of the investment choices must be set out in the employee booklet.
 
Sponsors of federally-registered DC plans have until December 31, 2009 to get their comments into OSFI.

FSCO Provides Guidance on Commuted Value Transfers

Earlier this year, the Ontario government amended the regulations under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act to provide sponsors of defined benefit plans with temporary relief from current solvency funding pressures.  Included in these amendments was a permanent change to section 19 of the regulations, which now requires a plan administrator to seek the prior approval of the Superintendent before transferring any funds out of the pension plan where the administrator knows or ought to know that the transfer ratio in the most recently filed valuation report has declined by 10% or more.  

These changes sparked some confusion in the industry as to how it would apply in practice, the mechanics of the approval process and the kind of information that plan administrators would be expected to provide.

In response, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) published Policy T800-402 (PDF) to provide guidance on how to approach these limitations on commuted value transfers as well as a new request for approval form (PDF).

Most recently, FSCO posted additional questions and answers on commuted value transfers under the new regulations.  In particular, these Qs & As consider issues relating to:

  • multi-jurisdictional plans;
  • commuted value transfers under the pre-retirement death benefit, marital breakdown and lump sum small benefit provisions;
  • excess transfer values; and
  • processing requests for approval.

Given the continued instability of the financial markets, transfer ratios may continue to decline and, as a result, many plan administrators will have to consider these new requirements before paying commuted values out of the plan.