Tag: Act s. 67.3
-
Ontario Passes Bill 132 & 138 re PBA Amendments
Ontario Bill 132, Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019 and Bill 138, Plan to Build Ontario Together Act, 2019, received Royal Assent on December 10, 2019 . . .
This content is only available to subscribers. Please login or go to www.optimizelegal.com to learn more about this product. -
Ontario Bill 132 Includes PBA Amendments
Ontario introduced Bill 132, Better for People, Smarter for Business Act, 2019, for first reading on October 28, 2019. Bill 132 includes amendments to the Ontario Pension Benefits Act . . .
This content is only available to subscribers. Please login or go to www.optimizelegal.com to learn more about this product. -
Gallagher v. Gallagher, 2019 ONSC 1301 – Court Corrects Order re Application of Interest to Pension Transfer
Upon the breakdown of the Gallagher's marriage, Mr. Gallagher's Canadian Forces pension was valued at $812,825 with the Ms. Gallagher's interest being one half of this amount or $406,412.50. The actuary noted that while the Ontario Pension Benefits Act requires interest to be credited at an annual rate of 2% from the "Family Law Valuation Date" to the date of transfer, there was no equivalent provision in the Pension Benefits Division Act . . .
This content is only available to subscribers. Please login or go to www.optimizelegal.com to learn more about this product. -
FSCO Guideline re Administrative Penalties
FSCO has published an Administrative Penalties Guideline, which provides guidance regarding the process that is followed when the Superintendent imposes an administrative penalty under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act (PBA).
This content is only available to subscribers. Please login or go to www.optimizelegal.com to learn more about this product. -
Ontario Final Regulation re Administrative Penalties
Ontario has published Regulation 365/17 "Administrative Penalties", a new regulation under the Ontario Pension Benefits Act (PBA). These new Regulations (as well as the related PBA amendments) are scheduled to come into force on January 1, 2018.
Late last year, the government passed Bill 70, which added ss.108.1-108.5 to the PBA. These sections authorize the Superintendent to impose: (i) general administrative penalties for contravening a prescribed provision of the PBA or the regulations, a requirement imposed by order, or an obligation assumed by way of undertaking; and (ii) summary administrative penalties for contravening a prescribed provision of the PBA or the regulations.
This content is only available to subscribers. Please login or go to www.optimizelegal.com to learn more about this product. -
Flashback: Heringer v. Heringer, 2014 ONSC 7291 – Applying Interest to Pension Division on Marriage Breakdown
Ed. Note: On “Flashbacks Fridays” I report on cases that pre-date this service, expanding upon Optimize Pension’s collection of case law for future research purposes.
The Heringers separated after about 27 years of marriage. The wife requested a valuation of the husband’s pension. The Statement of Family Law Value, which was provided by OPTrust on the FSCO's standard forms (at the time), indicated that “interest will be added to the Family Law Value from the Family Law Valuation date to the beginning of the month in which the transfer is made to the former spouse”.
As part of their settlement, the husband agreed to pay $137,000 to the wife by means of a “transfer of his portion of his (OPTrust) pension pursuant to Bill 133.” A letter to the wife from OPTrust Benefits Specialist indicated that she would be paid $137,000 plus interest, however, OPTrust subsequently transferred $137,000 to the wife’s LIRA.
This content is only available to subscribers. Please login or go to www.optimizelegal.com to learn more about this product. -
Stephens v. Stephens, 2016 ONSC 367 – Interpretation of PBA Pension Division
In this marriage breakdown case, one of the assets at issue was the husband's pension plan (the Plan). In 2013, the Plan administrator provided a valuation of the husband's pension of $445,681.68, based on a transfer ratio of 73.1%. The parties subsequently entered into a settlement agreement based on the foregoing valuation.
About two years later, the plan administrator advised the parties that it had mistakenly applied the discounted transfer ratio to the valuation of the husband's pension and in fact, the husband's pension should have been fully valued at $609,687.67. The wife brought a motion to amend the pension provision in the settlement and to be paid an additional sum based on the increased value of her former husband's pension.
This content is only available to subscribers. Please login or go to www.optimizelegal.com to learn more about this product.