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


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

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 More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New 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 More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick 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 More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By 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 More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick 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 More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On 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 More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe 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 More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil 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 More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe 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 More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On 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

Search Archive


Scroll To Top