Tag: Act s. 76
Fredericton Police Association v. New Brunswick (Superintendent of Pensions), 2019 NBFCST 4, 5, 6 – Jurisdiction of the Tribunal & Other Procedural Issues
The New Brunswick Financial and Consumer Services Tribunal Decision rendered three procedural decisions related to the ongoing pension dispute between the Fredericton Police and Fire Fighters’ Associations and the City of Fredericton . . .
The Nova Scotia government introduced Bill 109, Pension Benefits Act (amended), for first reading on March 12, 2019. The Bill makes a number of amendments to the Nova Scotia Pension Benefits Act, largely related to plan funding . . .
Fredericton Police Association v. Superintendent of Pensions, 2016 NB FCST 2 – Tribunal Takes Issue with Superintendent Process and Orders Change to Asset Transfer Valuation Method
This is the latest decision related to the ongoing dispute between the Fredericton Police and Fire Fighters' Associations and the City of Fredericton with respect to the City's defined benefit pension plan. First, some background:
- The City's original DB plan had been funded on a going concern basis only, as it was exempt from solvency funding requirements.
- In 2011, the City attempted to address the plan's funding deficit by: increasing pension contributions, reducing indexing and changing the definition of “pensionable earnings”.
- The Police and Fire Fighters launched a number of proceedings before the New Brunswick Labour & Employment Board. First, in response to the change to "pensionable earnings" and then in response to the City of Fredericton's 2013 decision to convert the plan from a DB to a shared risk plan.
- The Labour Board issued an order essentially prohibiting the City from transferring the Police and Fire Fighters into the shared-risk plan.
- This resulted in the splitting of the original plan into two plans: a new DB plan for Police and Fire Fighters (the Police and Fire Plan) and the conversion of the original plan into a shared-risk plan for the remainder of the City employees.
- The assets and liabilities were split between the two plans in accordance with an actuarial report that was subsequently approved by the New Brunswick Superintendent of Pensions.
Estate A.B.C. v. Respondent 1 and the Superintendent of Pensions, 2016 NBFCST 1 – Interpretation of “Cohabit” and “Substantially Dependent”
The pension plan member died prior to retirement. At the time of his death, he had three adult children and was cohabiting with Mrs. C (the children's mother had died previously). Mrs. C was of the view that she was entitled to the member's death benefit, while the children argued that the member's estate was entitled to the death benefit, as Mrs. C did not qualify as a "spouse" under the New Brunswick Pension Benefits Act (NB PBA) (as it read in 2010).
“spouse” means either of a man and a woman who
(d)not being married to each other, have cohabited
(i)continuously for a period of not less than three years in a conjugal relationship in which one person has been substantially dependent upon the other for support, or
and have cohabited within the preceding year;
The New Brunswick Financial and Consumer Services Tribunal determined that Mrs. C qualified as a spouse under the NB PBA at the relevant time and, as such, she was entitled to the death benefit.
FSCO has updated its list of FAQs regarding Statements of Investment Policies and Procedures (SIPP). The FAQs cover the following points:
- General: overview of SIPP requirements and confirmation that SIPPs must still be established and files for member-directed defined contribution plans.
- This content is only available to subscribers. Please login or go to www.optimizelegal.com to learn more about this product.