Canada: Where Do We Stand? The Timminco Decision Raises More Questions Than It Answers Regarding The Status Of Pension Plan Claims

On January 24th, 2014, Justice Mongeon of the Superior Court of Quebec issued an important decision (the Timminco Decision) regarding the status of pension plan claims in the context of a CCAA restructuring. The Timminco Decision established that Section 49 of the Quebec Supplemental Pension Plans Act (the SPPA) creates a valid deemed trust1 which ranks ahead of pre-existing conventional security, and which survives the issuance of an Initial Order pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). This deemed trust protects all special contributions (or catch-up payments), even if they were not actually placed in a distinct trust account.

The Timminco Decision is Justice Mongeon's second judgment regarding the issue of pension plan claims in the CCAA context. Unfortunately, it is, in many ways, irreconcilable with his previous decision in White Birch Paper (theWhite Birch Paper Decision). As a result, it raises more questions than it answers.

Although it was to be expected that the court would modify its findings due to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Indalex (the Indalex Decision), which was issued subsequent to the White Birch Paper Decision, Justice Mongeon didn't simply follow the principles established by the Supreme Court. He actually reversed some of his own previous findings that were specific to the Quebec Supplemental Pension Plans Act.

As the Timminco Decision only (directly) addresses the relative rank of the deemed trust purportedly created pursuant to Section 49 of the SPPA and conventional security created prior to the issuance of the CCAA Initial Order, it is unclear how the Timminco Decision affects the status of Quebec law regarding the relative rank of pension plan claims and super-priority charges. This question remains open to interpretation.

What's more, it is not clear whether the court's analysis of and conclusion regarding the validity of the deemed trust purportedly created pursuant to Section 49 of the SPPA will withstand the scrutiny of the province's higher courts. The Quebec Court of Appeal has already received a motion for leave to appeal with respect to the Timminco Decision, which motion is presentable in mid to late May of this year.

In our view, the Court of Appeal should consider adopting the approach taken by Justice Schrager of the Superior Court of Quebec in the Aveos Fleet Performance Inc. matter (the Aveos Decision). As explained in greater detail below, we believe that his recent decision regarding the status of the deemed trust created pursuant to the federal Pensions Benefits Standards Act (PBSA) presents the opportunity to establish a more well-balanced and universally applicable framework relating to the status of statutory deemed trusts in an insolvency context.

Section 49 Does Create a Valid Prior Ranking Deemed Trust (after all)

In the White Birch Paper Decision, Justice Mongeon ruled that Section 49 of the SPPA did not create a valid deemed trust. In reaching this decision, he focused on the requirements that must be met in order to create a true trust pursuant to Quebec law, as well as the Minister of Justice's comments regarding Article 2715 CCQ (which governs floating hypothecs), which specifically establish that the common law notion of a floating charge does not exist pursuant to Quebec law.

In the Timminco Decision, Justice Mongeon approached the same question from an entirely different perspective. He did not address the Minister's comments and set aside the criteria to establish a true trust. Instead, he focused principally on a series of decisions interpreting the deemed trust provisions contained in the federal Income Tax Act.

Over the years, in decisions such as Henfrey Samson Belair, and Sparrow Electric, the Supreme Court of Canada repeatedly invalidated or limited the scope of such provisions. In each case, the federal legislator responded by amending the language of the provision in order to meet the requirements established by the Supreme Court. Finally, in First Vancouver Finance, the Supreme Court declared it was satisfied that the wording of the deemed trust provision was sufficient to establish its scope and rank.

Although Justice Mongeon considered such decisions in detail, his analysis ended with a recent Quebec Court of Appeal decision that followed First Vancouver Finance and declared that the deemed trust provision contained in the Quebec Tax Administration Act (formerly the Act Respecting the Ministère du Revenue), and worded in such a way as to mirror the amended federal deemed trust provisions, creates a valid and enforceable deemed trust under Quebec law.

Despite having acknowledged the Supreme Court's insistence on a strict interpretation of deemed trust provisions, and upon the "magic words" required, Justice Mongeon failed to enforce the requirement that the provision purporting to establish a deemed trust must clearly define the assets charged as well as the moment when the deemed trust attaches. Indeed, there is no discussion in the Timminco Decision of these requirements, which appear to be missing from the wording of Section 49 of the SPPA. Indeed the text of Section 49 is comparable to the equivalent provision in the Income Tax Act prior to the amendments made in order to address the Supreme Court's requirements.

In addition, the Timminco Decision circumvents the requirement, established in the Supreme Court decision in Sparrow Electric, that the relevant legislation explicitly grant priority not only over subsequent security, but also over existing conventional security.

With respect to this issue, the Timminco Decision refers to Section 264 of the SPPA, which states that "All contributions paid or payable into the pension fund" are unassignable and unseizable. The court considered this sufficient and concluded that these contributions were protected from claims by other creditors, including existing secured creditors.

This conclusion will no doubt be the subject of debate before the Court of Appeal, as the reasoning, while creative, appears somewhat flawed. At the very least, it must be said that Section 264 of the SPPA does not contain explicit wording of the type referred to in the Sparrow Electric decision.

How Does the Timminco Decision Affect the Status of Super-Priority Charges?

As mentioned, the Timminco Decision purports to affect only the status of existing conventional secured claims. However, as many of the key foundations supporting the White Birch Paper Decision have now been removed, it no longer provides clear guidance regarding the status and rank of super-priority charges (except as regards the issue of res judicata).

In light of the Timminco Decision, Section 49 of the SPPA must now be regarded as sufficient to create a valid deemed trust that protects special contributions and grant them rank ahead of conventional security. What's more, this deemed trust is now said to survive the issuance of an Initial Order pursuant to the CCAA.

In some ways, this brings Quebec in line with the state of the law in Ontario, following the Indalex Decision issued by the Supreme Court (although only the unremitted special contributions are captured by the deemed trust in Quebec, unlike in Ontario). However, the analysis which underpins the conclusions reached in the Timminco Decision is entirely different, due notably to the differences between the relevant provisions of the Ontario and Quebec pension legislation. Furthermore, the fact that the Court reversed itself on key elements of the White Birch Paper Decision casts doubts upon the application of the remaining elements.

As a result, it is our expectation that the Court of Appeal will grant leave and will provide its own analysis of the issues. We are hopeful that this will permit greater clarity to be achieved with respect to the rank of all types of claims.

The Aveos Decision Provides a Better Alternative

In our view, the Aveos Decision, issued by Justice Schrager on November 20th, 2013, merits careful consideration by the Court of Appeal in its deliberations regarding the Timminco Decision. Although the clause of the PBSA that purports to create a deemed trust is different from Section 49 of the SPPA, Justice Schrager's analysis of the criteria applicable to deemed trust provisions is well-reasoned and complete.

More importantly, however, in the Aveos Decision, Justice Schrager addresses the most important issue relating to all deemed trusts, namely, whether such deemed trusts (even if they are validly constituted) continue to apply once a debtor company has availed itself of the protection of the CCAA. This question was addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Indalex Decision. However, it was examined more directly and from a broader standpoint by Justice Fish in his additional reasons in the Century Services matter (the Century Services Decision). In the Aveos Decision, Justice Schrager refers to the reasons of Justice Fish in the Century Services Decision and adopts his reasoning in concluding that the "general rule [is] that deemed trusts are ineffective in insolvency".

In order to continue to apply, the deemed trust provision must be "saved" by an express provision in the CCAA (or the BIA, as the case may be). In this respect, both the Supreme Court in the Century Services Decision and Justice Schrager in the Aveos Decision point to provisions in the CCAA that do save certain statutory deemed trusts, but make no mention of either the SPPA or the PBSA (or any other equivalent pension benefit legislation). They conclude that, as the legislator chose not to include these provisions, it must have intended for the deemed trusts created thereby to cease to apply once a CCAA initial order is granted.

In support of this conclusion, both Justice Schrager and Justice Fish also refer to the fact that in the most recent amendments to the CCAA, the legislator granted protection with respect to certain pension plan benefits, to the specific exclusion of special contributions. As a result, it is contrary to the rules of statutory interpretation to declare that, despite having been denied such protection by virtue of the text of the CCAA, the same protection is nevertheless afforded indirectly by virtue of the survival of a statutory deemed trust.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court did not seize the opportunity to confirm the rule established by Justice Fish in the context of the Indalex Decision. Nevertheless, we believe the reasoning is well-founded and hope that the Court of Appeal of Quebec will choose to follow Justice Schrager's lead in adopting it.

In the interim, secured lenders and other interested parties will need to exercise caution and ensure that issues of status and rank are dealt with at the very outset of any CCAA proceedings. In so doing, they will be in a position to rely upon the res judicata rule established in the White Birch Paper Decision, as well as the principles set forth in the Supreme Court's Indalex Decision.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Stikeman Elliott LLP
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Stikeman Elliott LLP
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions