Skip to content

Client Update: New Nova Scotia Pension Benefits Act and Regulations effective June 1, 2015

On April 21, 2015, the Nova Scotia government declared that the new Pension Benefits Act (passed in 2011) and new Pension Benefits Regulations will come into effect on June 1, 2015. The new Regulations follow the new Act and draft Regulations summarized in our previous updates:

Plans have until June 1, 2018 to file amendments to comply with the new legislation. While the actual amendments do not need to be filed until that time, plans must be administered in accordance with the new legislation from June 1, 2015 onward.

The new Act and Regulations introduce changes including:

  • New types of pension plans, including jointly sponsored pension plans (“JSPPs”) and target benefit plans (“TBPs”).
  • Immediate vesting of pension benefits.
  • Greater disclosure of information.
  • Payment of periodic pension benefits from defined contribution plans rather than being required to purchase an annuity or transfer out to a locked-in account (“variable benefits”).

Changes in the new Regulations, most of which are consistent with those previously announced, include:

Funding

  • Annual Valuations: Plans must file valuations annually (instead of up to every three years) for reports prepared after June 1, 2015 if the plan has “solvency concerns”. For most plans, solvency concerns will exist if the solvency ratio is less than 0.85 (85%). This does not apply to designated plans (under the federal Income Tax Regulations) or individual pension plans.
  • JSPPs: The previously proposed approach of applying a different solvency concerns threshold of 0.80 to JSPPs has been removed. JSPPs must therefore fund in the same funded situations as other plans. This removes a primary reason to establish a JSPP.
  • The solvency liabilities that must be funded by pension plans have not changed from those previously proposed and exclude special allowances, prospective benefit increases and “grow in” benefits.
  • As originally proposed, escalated adjustments (e.g. indexation benefits) accrued up to June 1, 2015 will be excluded from solvency liabilities but any accrual on or after June 1, 2015 will need to be funded. Future escalated adjustments must be pre-funded on both a going concern and solvency valuation.
  • Exemptions from solvency funding will continue for certain specified plans including:
    • Municipality pension plans
    • University pension plans
    • Specified multi-employer pension plans
  • Actuarial valuation reports must be filed no later than nine months after the valuation date instead of 12 months.
  • Provisions for letters of credit are generally the same as previously proposed and are consistent with the comparable Ontario provisions.

Solvency Relief

  • One time solvency relief has been continued for plans that have not already sought solvency relief for valuations as of a date from January 3, 2011 to January 2, 2014. Pension plans may continue to seek this relief but no new solvency relief has been offered.
  • With the relief, a solvency deficiency can be funded over a period of up to 15 years (instead of five) provided that no more than one third of plan members object. Consent or objection will be given by members’ union, if applicable.
  • A plan cannot be amended to increase cost of benefits or worsen the funded status of the plan without fully funding the cost of amendment.

Disclosure

  • Annual Member Statements: New information must be provided on annual statements to active members for plan years ending after June 1, 2015. Such information includes:
    • For defined benefit plans, the transfer ratio from the last two valuation reports filed and an explanation of how it relates to the level of funding members’ benefits.
    • Where applicable, a statement that special payments are being made.
    • For multi-employer pension plans (“MEPPs”) and defined benefit plans that limit employer contributions to a fixed amount, a statement that, if the plan is wound up and the assets are not sufficient to meet the liabilities of the plan, benefits may be reduced.
    • As the funding level for JSPPs is no longer different, the statements previously proposed identifying those differences have been removed.
  • Information for Inspection: Specified documents must be made available for inspection without charge and some documents must be available by mail or electronically at a cost capped by the Regulations.
  • Information to Trustees: A summary of contributions must be given to fund trustees no later than 60 days after the beginning the plan’s fiscal year. A summary of contributions is not required for MEPPs.

Amendments

  • Notice to all persons affected by an amendment must be provided at least 45 days before the amendment is filed unless the amendment is of a technical nature, will not substantially affect pension benefits or will not adversely affect any payments. In the latter circumstances, notices must be given no later than six months after registration.
  • Amendments to supporting plan documents must be filed within 60 days.

Other changes are generally consistent with those as originally proposed including:

  • Audited financial statements for a pension fund must now be filed no later than six months after the end of the plan’s fiscal year. This does not apply to plans with less than $5 million in assets or if the plan’s assets were held by one insurance company or pooled funds provided by a single trust company, which are audited. MEPPs must also file audited financial statements. Financial statements must disclose each investment that has a market value more than 2% of the investments of the pension fund.
  • The investment restrictions are essentially the same as previously proposed, including removal of restrictions on investment in real property and Canadian resource properties. Changes recently adopted under the federal Pension Benefits Standards Regulations, such as the amendment of the “10% rule” to be based on market value instead of book value, have not been followed.
  • In addition to provisions previously proposed, if a member opts for phased retirement, their regular hours of work cannot be reduced by more than the difference between their hours before phased retirement and the number of hours of work represented by the maximum amounts payable as phased retirement benefits under the federal Income Tax Regulations.
  • JSPPs are now declared by a “statement” instead of an election. Documents must also set out how decisions on terms and conditions of the plan and any amendments are made and how administrators or members of body that administers are appointed. JSPPs may opt out of “grow-in” through a new voting procedure set in the Regulations.
  • Plan records must be retained for seven years.

Areas that are still not addressed in the regulations include:

  • Target benefit plans
  • Asset transfers between pension plans

Other provisions not yet proclaimed include the restriction against amendments from increasing benefits if that increase would reduce the funded ratio of the plan, and provisions relating to insolvencies.

The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions, or for a detailed list and background of our Labour and Employment practice group, please visit www.stewartmckelvey.com.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

Plaintiffs’ medical reports – disclosure obligations in Unifund Assurance Company v. Churchill, 2016 NLCA 73

January 10, 2017

Joe Thorne1 and Justin Hewitt2 In Unifund Assurance Company v Churchill,3  the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal considered the application of our rules of court and the common law as they relate to disclosure of documents produced in…

Read More

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top