Canada: Pension and Employee Benefits: Regulatory & New Case Developments

Last Updated: March 28 2006

Article by Jeffrey Sommers, ©2006 Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

This article was originally published in Blakes Bulletin on Pension and Employee Benefits- January 2006

The law relating to pensions and employee benefits continues to undergo significant and ongoing change, including clarification of the plan administrator’s duty to disclose information about proposed amendments, jurisdictional limits of provincial pension laws and courts, right of employers and unions to negotiate use of surplus, and a variety of legislative and regulatory initiatives.


Disclosure of Pension Plan Amendments.
Hembruff v. Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Board is a significant case dealing with a pension plan administrator’s duty to communicate pending plan amendments to plan members. The lower court’s finding that potential amendments must be disclosed if they would be material to decisions made by members was very troubling to plan administrators. In November 2005, the Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the lower court’s decision and provided much needed clarification as to a plan administrator’s obligations relating to potential plan amendments.

In overturning the lower court’s decision, the Court of Appeal held there had been no negligent misrepresentation because the plan’s Board of Trustees (the Board) had acted prudently in not notifying members of a proposed amendment to the plan. While the Court acknowledged a plan administrator has an obligation to disclose "highly relevant" information, information about a potential plan amendment is not highly relevant since it is speculative and not reasonable for a plan member to rely if it were disclosed. The Court of Appeal also held there had been no breach of fiduciary duty by the Board. In finding there is no legal obligation to disclose plan amendments that are merely under consideration, the Court noted such an obligation would impose an "unmanageable burden" on an administrator by requiring it to determine how seriously a change must be under consideration before triggering the obligation, the extent of information to be disclosed, and when and how such disclosure would have to be made. The Court concluded the Board had no obligation to disclose the plan amendments until it had finished its recommendations to the Ontario government, which had ultimate authority to approve plan changes.

The Court also found the Board did not breach its fiduciary duty by recommending an effective date of January 1, 1999 for the amendments, even though the result was that members who ceased to have an entitlement under the plan before January 1, 1999 did not become entitled to any benefit enhancements. The Court held the Board had valid reasons for selecting this date and recognized any effective date would result in some members or former members being denied benefits.

Finally, the Court endorsed a position taken by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in McMaster that any former members who transfer the commuted value of their benefits out of a pension plan forfeit any entitlement to additional future benefits under the plan.

Jurisdiction of Ontario Court and PBA Over Québec Employees.
Two cases recently addressed this issue. In Boucher v. Stelco Inc., a pension plan registered in Ontario included some members employed in Québec. In 1990, Stelco closed three of its Québec facilities and, at the request of affected employees, the Ontario Superintendent of Financial Services (the Superintendent) ordered a partial wind-up of the plan. In determining the affected members’ entitlements, Stelco did not provide "grow-in" benefits under the Pension Benefits Act (Ontario) (PBA) because the affected employees were employed in Québec. Stelco took the position that grow-in benefits under the PBA apply only to members employed in Ontario, even though the plan expressly stated it was subject to Ontario law. The Superintendent approved Stelco’s partial wind-up report.

The affected members began an action before the Québec Superior Court claiming entitlement to grow-in benefits based on a provision in the plan stating it "shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Province of Ontario." The Québec Superior Court found it had jurisdiction to hear the case but concluded the members employed in Québec were not entitled to grow-in benefits under the PBA.

A majority of the Québec Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court in finding it had jurisdiction to hear the matter. The majority also agreed that section 74 does not apply to members employed in Québec. The majority concluded the provision of the plan text stating the plan was to be construed and interpreted under the laws of Ontario did not grant any benefits to plan members.

In November 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an appeal of the Québec Court of Appeal ruling. The Supreme Court found the Superintendent had the authority to approve the partial wind-up report pursuant to the PBA and the memorandum of reciprocal agreement between the various pension regulators in Canada. Interestingly, the Court also held that the Québec courts did not have jurisdiction to hear this case, based on the principle of res judicata (that is, the Superintendent’s decision was not contested in an Ontario court and is final).

The Supreme Court went on to note that, even if the Québec court had found it had jurisdiction, it would have been justified in declining such jurisdiction based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens (that is, there was no reasonable basis for it to be heard in a Québec court). The Supreme Court found the Québec court should have recognized an Ontario court would be in a better position to hear the matter.

In October, the Ontario Superior Court heard arguments in the case of Vivendi Universal Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services). Vivendi is seeking a declaration that the PBA, not the Supplemental Pension Plans Act (Québec), applies to its pension plan. The Ontario and Québec legislation have differing approaches relating to the transfer of assets from a pension plan that is surplus in connection to a sale of a business. The Québec pension regulator has opposed Vivendi’s application on a number of grounds. A decision has yet to be issued as of this publication.

Fiduciary Duty Re: Plan Amendments.
In October 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada denied the applicants’ leave to appeal in Association provinciale des retraites d’Hydro-Québec v. Hydro-Québec. The Québec Court of Appeal rendered its much awaited decision in this case in March 2005, dealing with whether, according to the Civil Code of Québec and the Supplemental Pension Plans Act, the employer in its capacity as a sponsor of a pension plan is bound by a fiduciary obligation requiring all participants, active and non-active, be treated in an even-handed, equitable manner and without any bias when a plan amendment is negotiated or imposed.

The Québec Court of Appeal found that the employer did not have such a fiduciary obligation. For more details regarding the Québec Court of Appeal decision, please refer to Blakes Bulletin on Pension & Employee Benefits of April 2005.

Trustees’ Discretion.
In Neville v. Plumbing & Pipefitting Workers Local 170 Pension Plan (Trustee of), the Mechanical Industrial Relations Association (MIRA), which acts for employers in the plumbing and pipefitting industry, established a multi-employer pension plan for the employees in the industry. After the plan suffered over $70 million in investment losses, the trustees recognized the plan could no longer maintain the then-current contribution and benefit structure. They decided to reduce accrued benefits (as permitted under the applicable legislation with consent of the B.C. Superintendent of Pensions) and future benefit levels.

In amending the plan to reduce the benefit structure, the trustees unanimously chose an option that allocated more reduction to the benefits of non-retired members than retired members. The B.C. Superintendent of Pensions approved the related plan amendment. A non-retired member, who attempted unsuccessfully to represent all non-retired members, subsequently sued the trustees for breach of trust for not applying the reduction equally between all members.

The B.C. Supreme Court held the trustees were "entitled to exclude some beneficiaries from particular benefits and to prefer others" so long as trustees did not take into account "irrelevant or improper or irrational factors" in making a decision. In this case, the trustees considered the fact non-retired members had received percentage increases in the past more frequently than retired members, the pensions paid to retirees were not indexed to inflation, and non-retired members were still accruing pension benefits.

The Court found these were proper considerations and the trustees’ decision was reasonable. The Court further noted that half of the trustees were selected by the union and the other half by the employers, which meant that, to some extent, different interests of the beneficiaries were taken into account when decisions were made. This case has now been appealed to the B.C. Court of Appeal, but has not yet been heard.

Pension Plan Funding.
The case of Butler Brothers Supplies Ltd. v. British Columbia (Financial Institutions Commission) examines whether a plan sponsor can use a letter of credit to address a solvency deficiency in a pension plan. The B.C. Court of Appeal recently upheld the lower court’s decision that the plan sponsor could not deposit a letter of credit to fund the plan’s solvency deficiency and that a letter of credit is not an asset within the meaning of the Regulations under the B.C. Pension Benefits Standards Act.

Bankruptcy Proceedings.
In a prior proceeding of Ivaco Inc. (Re), the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted Ivaco Inc. and affiliated companies facing bankruptcy, an order to suspend past service contributions to 16 affected pension plans. The Superintendent sought an order to direct the court-appointed monitor to distribute proceeds from the subsequent sale of Ivaco and some of its subsidiaries to four pension plans. In the alternative, the Superintendent requested an amount sufficient to satisfy the claims of the four plans be held in segregated trusts for the beneficiaries.

The court dismissed the Superintendent’s motion. While Ivaco’s assets would be subject to a deemed trust pursuant to the PBA in a non-bankruptcy situation, the deemed statutory trust does not have priority when a company faces bankruptcy. Rather, a "true trust" has priority over other claims. The court emphasized that trust law principles establish a true trust exists if there is: 1) certainty of intent; 2) certainty of subject matter; and 3) certainty of object.

The court said, "[f]or these three certainties to be met, the trust funds must be segregated from the debtor’s general funds." In this case, since the funds were not segregated for the beneficiaries, the deemed statutory trusts were not true trusts that would affect their priority over other claims. The court added that the administrator’s lien pursuant to the PBA was not a "lien" under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA). Accordingly, the administrator’s lien is ineffective in a bankruptcy. The court confirmed that BIA establishes the priority of claims.

Attempt to Create a Class Action.
In Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) Pension Plan Members v. Public Service Alliance of Canada, former members of the PSAC Plan claim the defendant wrongfully appropriated surplus by taking a contribution holiday, allowing employees to pay a portion of their contribution from the surplus, providing early retirement incentive payments to certain employees, making pay equity payments and providing enhanced pension benefits to new retirees by improving the method of calculating the three best year’s average and introducing the Rule of 80 in place of the Rule of 85. In a recent court motion, the plaintiffs sought to certify the action as a class action under the Class Proceedings Act (Ontario), with a proposed representative class that included "[M]embers of the Public Service Alliance of Canada Pension Plan who retired from employment before December 31st, 2001, and who are entitled to a pension benefit or deferred pension benefit, together with spouses or dependent children entitled to an immediate or deferred pension, as a result of the death of a retired member, and the estate or any beneficiaries of a member deceased since December 31st, 2001."

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s motion, finding that the plaintiffs had not defined a class, they sought to represent various groups of individuals with conflicting interests, that a class proceeding is not the preferable procedure to deal with the governance claim as this could be adequately dealt with by way of a standard proceeding, and the plaintiffs’ proposed litigation plan was unworkable.


Wind-up of Pension Plans.
In Mary Sutton -and- Superintendent of Financial Services and AIG Assurance Canada, AIG sponsored and administered the AIG Assurance Canada Pension Plan for Salaried Employees, which was a defined benefit pension plan that had a surplus as of May 1, 2001. On that date, AIG became a participating employer under the Commerce and Industry Insurance Company of Canada Pension Plan (Commerce Plan), a defined contribution pension plan sponsored by an affiliate of AIG and, for the purpose of future service, AIG Plan members became members of the Commerce Plan. On October 25, 2002, AIG applied to merge the AIG Plan with the Commerce Plan. Mary Sutton, a member of the AIG Plan, requested the Superintendent order a wind up of the plan. In response, the Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal (NOP), proposing to refuse to order a wind-up of the AIG Plan.

Ms Sutton requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal (FST) to review the Superintendent’s NOP. She argued that since AIG ceased making contributions to the AIG Plan, the Superintendent should order the wind-up pursuant to the PBA. AIG argued the PBA provides an exception where the employer establishes a successor plan and that the Superintendent did not have the authority to wind-up the AIG Plan in these circumstances.

While the FST found that the PBA did not bar the Superintendent from ordering the wind-up the AIG Plan, it noted the authority to do so was discretionary. More specifically, the FST found that subsection 69(1) of the PBA "does no more than confer jurisdiction to act upon the Superintendent when one of the listed factual situations occurs, and possibly to impose a duty to consider whether to exercise that jurisdiction." Examining the circumstances of this case, the FST held the Superintendent was justified in refusing to order the wind-up of the AIG Plan.


FSCO Updates – FSCO Asset Transfer Policy.
In July 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal issued its decision in Aegon Canada Inc. and Transamerica Life Canada v. ING Canada Inc. (Transamerica) relating to the transfer of assets between pension plans. The Divisional Court of Ontario also addressed this issue in December 2004 in Baxter et al. v. National Steel Car Limited et al. (Baxter).

In response to these cases, on September 30, 2005, the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) released an asset transfer update and checklist, which are available on its Web site. As well as the requirements set out in FSCO’s previous policies on asset transfers, the update requires applicants seeking the Superintendent’s consent to a transfer of assets between pension plans to identify the impediments related to trust issues that may need to be considered as a result of the Transamerica and Baxter decisions.

Applicants are encouraged to complete the checklist that deals with trust-related issues and certify the answers are accurate to their best of their knowledge and belief. If an applicant chooses not to use the checklist, it will have to satisfy FSCO staff that its application does not raise any trust-related issues that prevent the Superintendent from consenting to the application in light of the Transamerica and Baxter decisions. Applicants who do not use the checklist should address these issues in the same order as they appear in the checklist. If an applicant determines there are trust-related issues relating to the proposed asset transfer, FSCO advises applicants to make submissions as to why the Superintendent should consent to the application. FSCO emphasizes the completion and certification of the checklist does not ensure the Superintendent will approve the application. Rather, the checklist addresses only the trust-related impediments that may affect asset transfers. While staff have attempted to identify all the trust-related issues, the checklist is not considered to be all-inclusive. The checklist appears to be a useful tool for narrowing the issues to be addressed and a welcome respite from the overly restrictive approach to asset transfers previously adopted by FSCO.

Definition of "Spouse" under the Pension Benefits Act (Ontario).
On June 13, 2005, the Spousal Relationships Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005 amended the definition of "spouse" in the PBA. The definition of spouse now includes same-sex spouses and opposite-sex spouses who are married to each other or who live together in a common-law relationship. FSCO issued policy S500-101 to communicate this legislative change. FSCO further advised any reference to "same-sex partner" in any pension policy should now be read as a reference to "spouse" as defined under the PBA.

Funding Defined Benefit Pension Plans: Risk-Based Supervision in Ontario.

To support a risk-based approach to monitoring the funding of defined benefit pension plans, FSCO developed a computerized database and required plan administrators to file the Actuarial Information Summary (AIS). FSCO implemented this initiative in July 2000. From the filed AIS, FSCO collects actuarial and financial data used to analyze the funded status of defined benefit pension plans. In September 2005, FSCO issued its first report, Funding Defined Benefit Pension Plans: Risk-Based Supervision in Ontario, presenting its findings on the analysis of this data.

Federal – OSFI Instruction Guide for Asset Transfers Between Defined Benefit Pension Plans.
In July 2005, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) published the Instruction Guide for "Asset Transfers Between Defined Benefit Pension Plans" (Guide). The Guide sets out the general principles and detailed criteria that pension plan administrators must satisfy before OSFI grants permission for the transfer of assets between pension plans.

Taxation – Registered Plans Directorate RPP Technical Manual.
In early November 2005, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) posted its "Registered Plans Directorate RPP Technical Manual" on its Web site. The Manual’s purpose is to provide Directorate staff with assistance in the interpretation of those provisions in the Income Tax Act (Canada) that relate to registered pension plans. This technical reference tool is now available to the public. The Manual does not have the force of law.

Year’s Maximum Pensionable Earnings.
On November 2, 2005, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) announced the Year’s Maximum Pensionable Earnings (YMPE) for 2006 is $42,100, an increase of $1,000 from the 2005 YMPE. The combined employee and employer CPP contribution rate for 2006 remains 4.95% with a maximum dollar limit of $1,910.70. The maximum dollar limit in 2005 was $1,861.20. The self-employed contribution rate for 2006 remains 9.9% with a maximum dollar limit of $3,821.40. The maximum dollar limit in 2005 was $3,722.40.

Québec – Bill 102 & Funding Regulation.
On June 17, 2005, Québec Bill 102, and the Act respecting the Funding of Certain Pension Plans, came into force. The Bill provides a temporary relaxation of certain funding rules for defined benefit and hybrid pension plans. On August 24, 2005, the Québec government enacted the Regulation under the Act respecting the Funding of Certain Pension Plans. The Regulation establishes procedures and rules that apply to employers when taking advantage of the relaxed funding requirements in the Act.


CAPSA Proposed Funding Principles for a Model Pension Law.
The Canadian Association of Pension Supervisory Authorities (CAPSA) published a consultation paper and Questions and Answers on the "Proposed Funding Principles for a Model Pension Law." The funding principles set out in the consultation paper aim to provide a "basis for harmonized model of funding rules for defined benefit pension plans." CAPSA explains that these funding rules "would contribute to the reduction of compliance costs and simplify the administration of multi-jurisdictional pension plans." The consultation paper includes discussion on:

    • The objectives and consideration that CAPSA has taken into account in the development of the funding principles
    • The 15 proposed funding principles for comment
    • Three additional principles for further deliberation
    • Questions to guide the deliberations.

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.

Events from this Firm
26 Oct 2018, Other, Vancouver, Canada

Cybersecurity, including data privacy and security obligations, has become a critical chapter in every company’s risk management playbook.

30 Oct 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Please join us for discussions on recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits as well as employment law issues.

12 Nov 2018, Other, Toronto, Canada

Stories aren’t falsehoods. Stories are the root of all effective human communications: they motivate, animate and clarify. If you aren’t telling stories, you probably aren’t getting your point across.

In association with
Related Topics
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