Skip to content

Reunited and it feels so good: pensions, benefits and New Brunswick’s Unclaimed Property Act

Christopher Marr, TEP and Lauren Henderson

Each year in New Brunswick, millions of dollars sit in limbo: unpaid wages, forgotten security deposits, overpayments to debt collectors, and benefits from estates, pensions and employee benefit plans, to name a few. To address this issue, New Brunswick has become the fourth province in Canada to implement an unclaimed property regime with Bill 22, also known as the Unclaimed Property Act (“Act”), receiving Royal Assent on March 17, 2020. The Act aims to reconnect individuals with their forgotten or misplaced financial assets (“Eligible Property”) while reducing the cost, liability and uncertainty placed upon the holders of such assets, including employers and pension and employee benefits funds.

The regime operates in a manner similar to its federal counterpart, which requires banks to turn over to the Bank of Canada money found in inactive accounts of un-locatable persons. The Bank of Canada then holds the funds for a specified period.

In New Brunswick, holders of Eligible Property will be required to hold on to it for a period of time to be specified in regulations, after which the property will be presumed unclaimed. Holders of unclaimed property must then: provide notice to the last known address of the owner, and if no claim is made by the owner, report and remit the unclaimed property to the Director of Unclaimed Property (“Director”). A holder’s failure to report can result in interest and late fees. The program is also available, at the discretion of the Director, to holders on a voluntary basis.

Once the holder fulfills its duties under the Act, the holder is relieved from liability and the Director becomes the custodian of the property. The Director will maintain a searchable directory, allowing owners to identify and claim any unclaimed property held in their name. Any property that remains unclaimed may be used to assist in the administration of the program and any other consumer protection initiatives.

This is a welcomed solution to an ongoing problem for active and terminated pension plans alike. In contexts such as pension plan terminations, mandatory commencement of benefit payments and retiree or plan member deaths, an un-locatable member places a practical burden and expensive fiduciary obligation on plan administrators who need to hold on to funds and determine what to do with them, for what could be an indefinite period of time. The Act will now allow plan administrators to move any funds that belong to an un-locatable plan member and otherwise meet the requirement of the Act over to the Director.

While this is a step in the right direction, plan administrators should still consider what can be done on their end to limit potential problems associated with un-locatable persons, such as:

  • Establish and implement a plan records management policy to ensure member information remains accurate (including reminders in member communications);
  • Establish a missing members policy (standards for searching for members); and
  • Establish procedures to address late commencement of pensions where missing persons are found.

Roles/responsibilities as well as suggested steps to be taken after an unsuccessful search are also set out in the Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities’ (CAPSA) Guideline No. 9 on Searching for Un-locatable Members of a Pension Plan.


This article is provided for general information only. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Pensions & Benefits Group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

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

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

Search Archive


Scroll To Top