New Brunswick regulator seeks input on revised proposed rule under Unclaimed Property Act
Christopher Marr, TEP and Level Chan with the assistance of Annelise Harnanan (summer student)
On May 20, 2021, the New Brunswick Financial and Consumer Services Commission (“FCNB”) released a revised version of one of its proposed rules (“Revised Rule”) under the Unclaimed Property Act (“the Act”). As detailed in our previous client update, the Act aims to reconnect New Brunswickers with their forgotten or lost assets, and to release holders of lost assets from any liability with respect to those assets, by allowing lost assets to be transferred to the Director of Unclaimed Property. The Act received Royal Assent in March 2020 and will come into force once the associated rules are finalized.¹
FCNB first published draft rules for comment in September 2020, and received 14 comments from businesses and other organizations. The Revised Rule was prepared by FCNB in response to those comments, and includes the following significant changes:
Changes to the categories of property that are excluded from application of the Act
- Property held in a safe deposit box by a provincially regulated credit union, trust company, caisse populaire or federal financial institution, was clarified to include all property held in safekeeping by any of the foregoing institutions (s. 3(1)(c)).
- Property that is an insurance policy and is deemed non-payable due to an exclusion permitted by the Insurance Act, and property that is held by a federal institution as defined in the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act (Canada) were added as new categories of excluded property (s. 3(f) and (g)).
Distinguishing between registered accounts and non-registered accounts
- The time periods for property to be considered unclaimed set out in Section 5 of the Revised Rule now treat property held in a registered plan and property held outside of registered plans as distinct categories (s. 5(1)-(2)). A period of three years remains the general rule, however the Revised Rule clarifies when that period starts.
Increasing the fair market value of property that is not required to be reported or delivered
- The Revised Rule increases the baseline amount for when holders of unclaimed property do not need to submit an unclaimed property report or deliver the associated unclaimed property to the Director of the new program to $1,000. Now, under s. 6(1), a holder may not have to submit a report or deliver the unclaimed property if:
- the total fair market value of the property from the previous five years is less than $1,000; and
- each individual property has a fair market value of less than $50.
Amendments adding registered disability savings plans and tax-free savings accounts
- Other registered accounts, such as tax free savings accounts and registered disability savings plans, were added to the Revised Rule (s. 5(2)).
With respect to registered pension plans, the Revised Rule continues to provide that the Act only applies to a wound-up pension plan but not an ongoing pension plan. FCNB said they may consider measures for ongoing pension plans at a later date. The Revised Rule also continues to exclude benefits from an ongoing accident, disability or sickness insurance policy.
FCNB has invited stakeholders to submit their comments on the Revised Rule during a 30-day period, ending on June 19, 2021. Written submissions may be sent to:
Secretary
Financial and Consumer Services Commission
85 Charlotte Street, Suite 300
Saint John, N.B. E2L 2J2
Telephone: 506‐658‐3060
Toll Free: 866‐933‐2222
Fax: 506‐658‐3059
E‐mail: information@fcnb.ca
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.
¹ See this note published by the FCNB regarding unclaimed property.
Archive
By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…
Read MoreNew Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…
Read MoreBy Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…
Read MoreOn April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…
Read MoreNeil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…
Read MoreOn June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…
Read More