Skip to content

A legal lost and found: proposed rules for New Brunswick’s Unclaimed Property Act now published

Christopher Marr, TEP and Michael Forestell

As detailed in our previous update , in March 2020 New Brunswick implemented the Unclaimed Property Act (“Act”), with the intention that the New Brunswick Financial and Consumer Services Commission (“FCNB”) would use its authority under the Act to develop new regulatory rules for the administration of unclaimed monetary property. This came to pass on October 21, 2021 when the FCNB provided notice that it had adopted two rules under the Act; the General Rule and the Fees Rule (collectively, the “Rules”). FCNB expects the regime to come into force on January 1, 2022, with the first reporting period occurring in January 2023.

Administrators of wound-up pension plans should pay particular attention to the adoption of the Rules, as they will, when in force, provide a more efficient way to dispose of unclaimed benefits owed to unlocatable members. At this time, the regime only applies to the assets of wound-up pension plans subject to New Brunswick law, which means that ongoing pension plans and pension plans in certain federally-regulated industries will not be affected. It is also noteworthy that plan administrators will be exempted from obligations under the new regime if the total fair market value of the property held is below $1,000.

When is property considered unclaimed?

The Rules state that, in most cases, monetary property will be presumed unclaimed if the apparent owner does not claim from or notify the property holder of their right or interest in the property for three years. The Rules also provide that once the director, appointed by the FCNB (“Director”), has received any unclaimed property, it will be added to the online public inventory for unclaimed property, which the Director will maintain. With respect to pension benefits, the three-year period begins when the wind-up report is approved. This period ends if the beneficiary explicitly indicates their interest in the benefit, or on the occurrence of other events, such as the administrator of a wound-up plan successfully delivering a statement to the apparent beneficiary, or the apparent beneficiary logging into an online account relating to the funds.

Rights and duties of administrators

The Rules also set out several rights and duties of holders of unclaimed property, including administrators of wound-up pension plans. Several examples are as follows:

  1. Property holders must try to notify the apparent owner or beneficiary of property by mail or email, if they have any of the owner’s addresses on record, prior to transferring the property to the Director. With respect to wound-up pension plans, this attempt must take place during, or near, the last quarter of the year of the third anniversary of the wind-up;
  2. Anyone holding unclaimed property on December 31 of any year, has ninety days from that date to submit the property to the Director, with a report that details information about the property and its apparent owner. Property holders can apply to deliver the property before the three-year period has lapsed, which requires the payment of an application fee;
  3. The Director has the authority to demand delivery of unclaimed property, backed by certain investigatory powers, in case property holders fail to cooperate. There are also provisions for late delivery with the Director’s permission and payment of an application fee;
  4. Interest fees on late transfers may apply, up to a $1,000 maximum; and
  5. Delivering unclaimed property to the Director in compliance with the Act discharges the holder from all liability in respect of the property.

General

Though the Rules are being adopted, the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities’ 2019 Guideline on Searching for Unlocatable Members remains a valuable resource for plan administrators to consult, as it suggests best practices that remain valuable under the Rules. For example, it advises that administrators should periodically remind plan participants to update their contact information if it changes.

How the Rules will be implemented, or what the practice will look like under this regime is still unknown, but soon to be seen. Of particular interest is whether the Rules will ever be amended to include assets of active pension plans, which has been discussed. As always, time will tell.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Pensions and Benefits group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Damages for minor injuries in Nova Scotia: a new case on the new cap

April 20, 2017

Damages for pain and suffering are capped for Nova Scotians who are injured in motor vehicle accidents if their injuries are considered “minor.” The cap was amended for accidents occurring on or after April 28,…

Read More

The Latest in Employment Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – “You gotta have (good) faith” … Terminating without notice during the probationary period

April 19, 2017

Grant Machum & Sean Kelly A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Ly v. British Columbia (Interior Health Authority) 2017 BCSC 42, provides helpful clarification of the law on termination of probationary employees on the basis…

Read More

Municipality liable for failing to ensure visitor was reasonably safe in Municipal Public Park

April 19, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman The Supreme Court of Canada recently declined to hear an appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Campbell v Bruce (County), 2016 ONCA 371. The Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court finding…

Read More

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top