Skip to content

The road forward: Nova Scotia government announces and seeks input on further regulatory changes regarding funding of defined benefit pension plans

Level Chan and Dante Manna

The Province of Nova Scotia is soliciting stakeholder input on significant regulatory changes to the Pension Benefits Act (“PBA”) and Pension Benefits Regulations (“PBR”).  The solicitation is accompanied by a paper entitled “Improved Funding Framework for Nova Scotia Pension Plans: The Road Forward”, published May 13, 2019.  The paper contains an overview of the legislative and regulatory changes that may be made, as well as seeking input on “technical issues”, to determine the “best road forward for regulatory provisions”.

Review of Bill 109 changes

The paper reviews recent changes to defined benefit (“DB”) plan funding introduced through Bill 109 in March 2019.  That Bill added PBA provisions allowing for the establishment of “reserve accounts”, removing the limits on the use of letters of credit, and allowing the discharge of liability for annuity buyouts for a DB plan that is not wound up.  These changes follow a review begun in Fall 2017 with a solicitation for input on potential changes to DB funding rules.

The changes made under Bill 109 are set to come into effect upon proclamation.  The paper indicates that is anticipated to happen in Fall 2019, along with the regulatory changes described below.

Planned regulatory changes

The paper outlines the planned changes to the PBR:

  • Permanent Solvency Funding Relief – DB plan sponsors will be permitted, on a go-forward basis, to elect to permanently fund their plans to an 85% solvency standard (rather than the current standard of 100%), subject to 5-year amortization and information requirements. The election will not be permitted to move forward if at least one third of eligible participants objects. Existing solvency funding exemptions will continue under the new regime.
  • Enhanced Going Concern Funding (PfAD) – Going concern deficiencies must be funded over 10 years (rather than 15) and special payments will be allowed to consolidate with prior deficiencies. A provision for adverse deviation (“PfAD”) must be established (applied to liabilities, but not current service cost), and funded in the same manner as the other going concern obligations. Much of the input sought by the Province is with respect to PfAD; see below.
  • Contribution Holiday Limitations – Contribution holidays will be restricted to plans with a going concern funding level of at least 110% and solvency funding level of at least 110% after the holiday is taken.
  • PfAD Calculations – The Province is considering two options for the required methodology for calculating a plan’s PfAD. Both proposed options depend on the proportion of assets held in variable income securities.
    • Option 1 – Under this option the PfAD ranges between 0% and 22%, determined by (a) the ratio of asset duration to liability duration and (b) the percentage of assets invested in variable income securities. The PfAD amount generally increases with a decrease in (a) or an increase in (b). This option is analogous to the PfAD calculation currently employed in Quebec.
    • Option 2 – The PfAD ranges between 5% and 22%, increasing in proportion to the percentage of assets in variable income securities. In contrast to Option 1, the method does not take asset-to-liability ratio into account, and there is a fixed base PfAD of 5% that applies to all plans.  This option is comparable to the Ontario PfAD calculation methodology.
  • Additional PfAD for Plans with Aggressive Discount Rates – It is proposed that the PfAD as calculated above would be supplemented by an additional amount if the pension plan were to use a discount rate exceeding a certain level. The level currently considered is the Ontario Benchmark Discount Rate.
  • Transition – A three-year transition period is proposed for plans where the contribution requirements will increase as a result of the new funding regime.
  • PfADs for Solvency Exempt Pension Plans – It is proposed that PfADs apply to all plans, including those exempt from solvency funding.
  • Frequency of Valuations for Solvency Exempt Pension Plans – Exempt plans with solvency concerns will no longer be required to submit annual valuations; instead, in an effort to “reduce cost and red tape”, the requirement will be triennial valuations and annual cost certificates, subject to the Superintendent’s discretion to require valuations more frequently.
  • IPP Exemptions – It is proposed that individual pension plans for owners and significant shareholders will be exempt from solvency funding and certain filing requirements. The paper does not mention any special notice or other requirements like those adopted in Newfoundland and Labrador, but they could be addressed in the PBR.
  • FIR Incorporation by Reference – Federal permitted investment rules will be incorporated by reference into the PBR so that any changes made to the former will automatically apply in Nova Scotia.
  • Benefit Improvements for Solvency Exempt Pension Plans – Solvency exempt plans will be able to improve benefits funded over five years if, at the time of the improvement, they are fully funded on a going concern basis and 85% funded on a solvency basis.

Summary of feedback requested

In summary, the Province is seeking feedback on the following:

  1. Types of employer contributions that should be permitted to be paid into a reserve account – as we noted in an earlier update, “reserve accounts” are not limited to solvency deficiency payments. The Province is considering allowing payments in respect of a going concern PfAD to be paid into a reserve account.
  2. Most appropriate form of going concern PfAD/margin
    1. Preference between Option 1 and Option 2 (and rationale)
    2. Other options that should be considered (and rationale)
    3. Whether there should be a different PfAD for solvency exempt or public sector plans
    4. Use of an additional PfAD to apply for pension plans using aggressive discount rates
    5. Definition of variable income securities
  3. Proposed three-year transition period for pension plans that must pay increased contributions under the new rules
  4. Proposed contribution holiday threshold (110% funded on both going concern and solvency bases)

We anticipate most stakeholders will see the value in providing input on the issues outlined above, as they will affect plan costs and options.

Feedback must be received by June 21, 2019 in order to be considered.


This update is intended for general information only. If you have 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