Skip to content

Client Update: New Brunswick proposes Pooled Registered Pension Plan legislation

Paul Smith and Dante Manna

On November 14, 2017, Bill 22, also known as the proposed Pooled Registered Pension Plan Act (the “NB Act”), was introduced in the New Brunswick Legislature. If passed, New Brunswick would join other provinces, including Nova Scotia, in enacting legislation similar to the Federal Act bearing the same name which was introduced in 2012. Like the Federal Act, which covers federally regulated employees, the NB Act would potentially provide access to Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) to New Brunswick employees.

In general, PRPPs are seen as a means of filling in gaps for employers that do not provide employment pension plans, by pooling contributions and distributing the associated costs across sectors. The regulatory framework enables third-party companies to seek licenses to provide PRPPs to multiple employers with investment and administrative management of the funds. Employer participation is voluntary and is open to smaller employers and the self-employed.

PRPPs must be provided to members for “low cost”, which according to the Federal definition means the cost of a defined contribution plan with at least 500 employees. The proposed NB Act leaves the definition of “low cost” to be determined by regulation.

Like other provincial PRPP legislation, the proposed NB Act aligns very closely with the Federal PRPP scheme, with the main differences being mostly procedural in nature. The NB Act also deals at length with the entitlement to pension funds of former spouses or common law partners on the breakdown of a marriage or partnership.

Given the close adherence of the proposed NB Act to the Federal model, it seems possible that New Brunswick will subscribe to the Multilateral Agreement Respecting Pooled Registered Pension Plans and Voluntary Retirement Savings Plans (“Multilateral Agreement”) once its legislation is passed. Currently, all provinces with PRPP legislation in effect are signatories. The signatory provinces effectively delegate responsibility for licensing, registering and supervising PRPPs to the Federal Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (“OSFI”). This coordination further enables multi-jurisdictional PRPPs by streamlining and centralizing the regulatory regime. It remains to be seen whether steps will be taken to join the other signatory provinces and make OSFI-regulated PRPPs immediately available in New Brunswick as well.

The proposed NB Act also follows other provinces to enact PRPP legislation in leaving a broad spectrum of matters to be determined by regulations, which are yet to come. For example, such important matters as frequency of employer contributions, when an employer’s contribution rate may be set to 0, and the criteria for determining whether a PRPP is “low cost”, are left to be provided in the regulations. In Nova Scotia, PRPP regulations were released for consultation prior to being passed.

If passed, the NB Act should be viewed as a positive step towards offering New Brunswickers another option in saving for their retirement.

This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about how the cases or tips above may affect you, please contact our pension and benefits law practitioners such as Paul Smith in Saint John and Dante Manna in Halifax.

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