Skip to content

Pension update – CAPSA releases consultation draft of CAP Guideline No. 3 for comment

Level Chan and Annelise Harnanan

Background

On May 13, 2022 the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities (CAPSA) released and invited feedback on a Consultation Draft of revisions to CAPSA Guideline No. 3 – Guidelines for Capital Accumulation Plans (“CAPs”). The guidelines proposed in the Consultation Draft (the “Proposed Guidelines”) update the 2004 Guidelines for Capital Accumulations Plans (the “Original Guidelines”) issued by the Joint Forum of Financial Market Regulators. Below we discuss some of the significant changes proposed.

Updates to the definition of CAP

The Proposed Guidelines have been updated to incorporate new (and some existing) plan types that were not directly addressed in the Original Guidelines. According to the Original Guidelines, CAPs can be established by employers, trade unions, and associations. The Proposed Guidelines clarify that CAPs can also be established by boards of trustees and licensed administrators of Pooled Registered Pension Plans or Voluntary Retirement Savings Plans.

In addition, the Proposed Guidelines include the following workplace plans or arrangements as examples of CAPs:

  • Locked-in retirement accounts (LIRAs)
  • Registered retirement income funds (RRIFs)
  • Life income funds (LIFs)
  • Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPPs)
  • Voluntary Retirement Savings Plans (VRSPs)
  • Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSAs)

Clarification of definition of CAP sponsor

The Proposed Guidelines provide the following breakdown of sponsors by common plan types:

  • Defined benefit contribution plans (DCPPs), Registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs), TFSAs and registered education savings plans (RESPs): the CAP sponsor may be the employer, former employer, trade union or other association.
  • RRIFs, LIFs and other retirement income drawdown options: the CAP sponsor may be the former employer, trade union or other association or a licensed administrator.
  • Deferred Profit Sharing Plans (DPSPs): the CAP sponsor is the employer.
  • PRPPs/VRSPs: the CAP sponsor is the licensed administrator.

Added factors that may affect CAP sponsor’s fiduciary duties

The Proposed Guidelines specify that all CAP sponsors have a common law fiduciary responsibility towards CAP members. The following are some of the factors that may affect the CAP sponsor’s fiduciary duties:

  • whether members contribute;
  • the discretionary authority of the sponsor to make decisions on behalf of CAP members;
  • the imbalance between the sponsor and members in their ability to negotiate terms with and access information from service providers; and
  • the varying levels of financial literacy among members.

Added recommendations

The Proposed Guidelines set out new recommendations for CAP sponsors.

Of note, they recommend that CAP sponsors establish and document a governance framework for the administration of the plan. The governance framework can include a description of the roles, responsibilities, and accountabilities of all participants in the plan, a communication process, a code of conduct for managing conflicts of interest, and a risk management framework. The Consultation Draft also recommends the establishment of a process for the regular review of the CAP’s governance process.  While becoming a more common requirement for administrators of more regulated plans like registered pension plans, this would expand the practices for sponsors who do not have such plans.

In addition, the Proposed Guidelines recommend that CAP sponsors establish automatic features as part of the CAP. These automatic features have the potential to increase participation in plans, encourage earlier and greater contributions, and encourage appropriate investment selection (which could lead to greater positive member outcomes).

Some proposed automatic features are:

  • automatic enrolment;
  • automatic escalation of CAP member contributions; and
  • default investment options.

The Proposed Guidelines also suggest that CAP sponsors consider entering into an agreement with (or referring members to) service providers who are qualified to provide investment planning. CAP sponsors that enter into such agreements should clearly communicate to CAP members the nature of the advice from the service provider, how the advisor is compensated, and who is paying for their services. The new guidelines also recommend that CAP sponsors develop criteria for selecting service providers. Factors to consider when establishing criteria include:

  • any conflict of interest of the service provider relative to other service providers, the CAP sponsor and its members that may impact the investment advice provided;
  • the quality of any asset allocation or financial planning model employed; and
  • knowledge of CAPs and related tax and regulatory requirements.

Other Changes

The Proposed Guidelines provide further detail regarding many of the recommendations in the Original Guidelines. For instance, the new guidelines suggest that CAP sponsors provide CAP members with additional information regarding the nature and features of the CAP, including:

  • enrolment information;
  • automatic features, if any;
  • how to terminate membership;
  • the decumulation options (as applicable) and their benefits and risks; and
  • how to withdraw or transfer money to available decumulation options and/or generate periodic retirement income.

The Proposed Guidelines also highlight that many of the decision-making tools that assist members in making investment decisions within the plan, such as asset allocation tools and retirement planning tools, require the use of assumptions. Consequently, the Proposed Guidelines suggest that plan sponsors periodically review these assumptions for reasonability. These assumptions should also be described and disclosed to plan members.

Finally, the Proposed Guidelines state that member statements (provided by CAP sponsors) should contain additional information, including:

  • notice of any upcoming requirement or ability for a CAP member to commence retirement income;
  • a reminder of any plan features that the member is not currently taking advantage of; and
  • information regarding the total level of fees and expenses payable by the member with respect to each investment option elected by the member.

Submitting feedback

CAPSA is seeking feedback on the Proposed Guidelines.  It requests that comments be as specific as possible and that they be provided by August 15, 2022. Please contact a member of our Pensions and Benefits team for assistance in making a submission.


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


 
 

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

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top