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


 
 

TTC’s Random Testing Decision: A Bright Light for Employers in the Haze of Marijuana Legalization

April 11, 2017

Rick Dunlop In my December 15, 2016 article, Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?, I noted the Report’s1 suggestion that there was a lack of research to reliably determine when individuals are impaired…

Read More

Unionization in the Construction Industry: Vacation Day + Snapshot Rule = Disenfranchisement

April 4, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Michelle Black On March 14, 2014, CanMar Contracting Limited (“CanMar”) granted a day off to two of its hard working and longer serving employees so they could spend time with their respective families. That…

Read More

Sometimes a bad deal is just a bad deal: unconscionability and insurance claim settlements in Downer v Pitcher, 2017 NLCA 13

March 16, 2017

Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The doctrine of unconscionability is an equitable remedy available in exceptional circumstances where a bargain between parties, be it a settlement or a release, may be set aside on the basis that…

Read More

Privilege Prevails: Privacy Commissioner protects solicitor-client communications

March 16, 2017

Jonathan Coady After more than five years, the Prince Edward Island Information and Privacy Commissioner (the “Privacy Commissioner”) has completed her review into more than sixty records withheld by a local school board on the…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Nova Scotia Teachers Union & Government – a synopsis

March 7, 2017

Peter McLellan, QC & Richard Jordan Introduction On February 21, 2017 the Nova Scotia Government passed Bill 75 – the Teachers’ Professional Agreement and Classroom Improvement (2017) Act. This Bulletin will provide some background to what is, today,…

Read More

Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador weighs in on the former client rule in commercial transactions

March 1, 2017

Bruce Grant, QC and Justin Hewitt In the recent decision of Scotia Mortgage Corporation v Furlong1 the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador confirmed that where a law firm acts jointly for the borrower and lender in the placement…

Read More

The Ordinary Meaning of Insurance: Client Update on the SCC’s Decision in Sabean

February 21, 2017

The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Sabean v Portage La Prairie Mutual Insurance Co, 2017 SCC 7 at the end of January, finally answering an insurance policy question that had divided the lower…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2017 Proxy Season

February 8, 2017

In preparing for the 2017 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to, and interactions with, your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Client Update: The Future of Planning and Development on Prince Edward Island – Recent Amendments to the Planning Act

January 23, 2017

Perlene Morrison and Hilary Newman During the fall 2016 legislative sitting, the Province of Prince Edward Island passed legislation that results in significant changes to the Planning Act. The amendments received royal assent on December 15, 2016 and…

Read More

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

Search Archive


Scroll To Top