Canada: DB and DC Pension Plans Impacted by a Recent Ontario Court Decision

On March 15, 2006, the Ontario Divisional Court released its decision in the Kerry1 case. Two aspects of the decision could have a significant financial impact on employers.

  • The Court concluded that the employer could not use defined benefit (DB) surplus in its pension plan to meet its contribution obligations under the defined contribution (DC) component of the same pension plan.
  • The Court concluded that the language of the historical plan and trust documents (language common in many plans) prevented even routine administrative expenses from being paid from the pension fund.

Background Facts

The pension plan being examined in this case (the "Plan") was established in 1954 as a defined benefit plan. By 1994, the Plan was sponsored by DCA Canada Inc. At the end of 1994, in the context of an asset purchase transaction, Kerry (Canada) Inc. ("Kerry") assumed the Plan from DCA Canada and as a result became the sponsor and administrator of the Plan. From

January 1, 1985 to the end of 1994, DCA Canada had been taking "contribution holidays" under the Plan and had authorized the payment of various administration expenses from the fund (the "Fund"). Kerry continued these practices after it assumed the Plan.

Effective January 1, 2000, the Plan was amended and restated (the "2000 Restatement") to add a DC component. The 2000 Restatement contemplated that DB surplus could be used towards Kerry’s contribution obligations under the DC component. In conjunction with the introduction of the DC component, Kerry gave notice to its employees that they had a one-time option to convert their DB entitlements to a DC account balance in the Plan.

A group of disgruntled former employees requested that the Ontario Superintendent of Financial Services (the "Superintendent") to do the following:

Order Kerry to reimburse the Plan for certain expenses paid out of the Fund. These expenses included, among other things, trustee fees and investment management fees.

Order Kerry to reimburse the Plan for all contributions it should have made, if it had not taken contribution holidays.

1. Refuse to register the 2000 Plan Restatement.

2. Decision of the Ontario Divisional Court

3. Through a series of appeals, these issues were considered by the Financial Services Tribunal (FST), which rendered a decision that was generally favourable to Kerry. The Plan members appealed the FST decision to the Ontario Divisional Court.

Plan Expenses

The Court examined the original plan and trust documents (from the 1950s) and concluded that those original documents did not authorize the expenses relating to the administration of the Plan to be paid out of the Fund. The Court noted that the original trust agreement specifically provided that the expenses of the trustee "shall be paid by the Company." Given this specific reference and the fact that there was no specific reference to payment of fees relating to the administration of the Plan, the Court concluded that Plan administration fees could not be paid from the Fund. Moreover, the Court concluded that the trustee’s fees could not be paid from the Fund because the trust agreement stated that such fees "shall be paid by the Company."

The original trust agreement had been amended several times to expand the circumstances in which Plan-related expenses could be paid from the Fund. Accordingly, the Court considered whether the employer had the power to amend the trust agreement to permit the payment of administrative and trustee expenses from the Fund where such expenses were not previously permitted to be so paid. The Court stated that such an amendment to the trust documents, which permitted the employer to direct the trustee to pay expenses out of the Plan assets, constituted a revocation of the trust. In this case, the employer had not specifically reserved the power to revoke the trust and so there was no power to make the amendments.

The Court concluded that Kerry did not have the power to amend the terms of the original trust to permit the payment of administrative and trustee expenses from the Fund. The end result was that the Court directed the Superintendent to order Kerry to reimburse the Fund for "all of the amounts paid out of the Fund after January 1, 1985 for expenses incurred to administer or operate the Plan and Fund … and for all income that would have been earned by the Fund if those expenses had not been paid from the Fund."

This aspect of the decision is troubling because it contemplates a significant payment being made to the Plan without any consideration of the potential adverse implications for Plan members and the Plan itself that could arise. For example, there is considerable uncertainty surrounding whether the Income Tax Act even permits such payments to be made to a registered pension plan, if the plan is in a surplus position.

Also noteworthy is that the effect of this reimbursement requirement is that Kerry is required to reimburse the Plan for expenses paid from the Fund not only relating to the period that Kerry was the Plan administrator, but also relating to the 10-year period before Kerry had even assumed responsibility for the Plan. Thus, Kerry was made financially responsible for improper expense payments authorized by a completely separate and independent legal entity.

Contribution Holidays - Plan Conversion

The Court concluded in favour of Kerry on the question of the validity of the contribution holidays taken since 1985 in relation to the DB component of the Plan. The Court went on to examine contributions made in relation to the DC component of the Plan, which was established effective January 1, 2000.

The Court held that the effect of the 2000 Restatement which added the DC component to the Plan, was to partially revoke the trust relating to the Plan because it permitted the assets held in relation to the DB component of the Plan to be used for purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of the members of the DB component (i.e., to fund employer contribution obligations under the DC component of the Plan). While the FST had reached the same conclusion, the FST had proposed that Kerry could be permitted to use DB surplus to fund its DC contribution obligations under the Plan through an appropriately worded amendment to the Plan with effect from January 1, 2000 (the effective date of the 2000 Restatement). However, the Divisional Court concluded that no matter what language was used it was not possible for Kerry to use DB surplus to fund its DC contribution obligations. The Divisional Court appears to have interpreted the amendment implementing the plan conversion as creating "in law, two (2) pension plans, two (2) pension funds and two (2) classes of members."2

The Court ordered the Superintendent to refuse to register the 2000 Restatement. Curiously, unlike its order dealing with expenses, the Court did not specifically order Kerry to reimburse the Plan for the amounts allocated from the DB component of the Plan to the DC component. Nor did the Court deal with the plethora of complications that arise from the refusal to register the 2000 Restatement. For example, what is the impact on affected Plan members who, from January 1, 2000, earned benefits under the DC component contained in the 2000 Restatement? What did this mean for employer and member contributions made under the DC component of the Plan? The Court merely directed Kerry to "go back to the drawing board."3

While it appears from the Court’s comments on the use of surplus from the DB component of the Plan to fund employer contributions under the DC component that the Court’s conclusion must apply in all similar cases, there may be factual features relating to the Plan which would cause this decision to have a more limited application. Unfortunately, the limited analysis in the case of the facts and trust law principles (including the absence of any analysis of the actual funding arrangements themselves) means that there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the relevance of particular distinguishing features.

Adequacy of the Notice to the Employees

The Court held that Kerry had a duty under section 22 of the Pension Benefits Act (Ontario) (the PBA)4 to comply with the notice requirements in section 26 of the PBA5 and to fairly disclose and describe the proposed changes to all affected parties, including employees who were beneficiaries under the original pension plan. The Court further held that Kerry’s failure to give proper notice of those changes meant that the Superintendent was required to refuse to register the 2000 Restatement.

This aspect of the decision highlights the importance of full and fair disclosure to plan members. However, it is now unclear what a plan administrator’s obligations are where an amendment might be considered as "adverse" for the purposes of section 26 of the PBA. Section 26 of the PBA indicates that it is for the Superintendent to determine exactly who must receive any applicable notice. However, in the Kerry case, the Court seemed to suggest that it was the administrator’s responsibility to determine whether or not an amendment might fall within the scope of section 26 of the PBA and to then anticipate to whom the Superintendent may require notice to be given.


The Kerry decision is the most recent in a series of decisions in which the courts have reached conclusions on complex pension issues with little or no meaningful analysis. If the decision stands, plan sponsors who have pension plans with a DB and a DC component will need to carefully review the way in which their pension plan is structured in order to determine if it is permissible to use DB surplus to fund DC contribution obligations under the same plan. The Kerry decision also creates considerable uncertainty with respect to past uses of DB surplus to fund DC contribution obligations. This could affect a great number of employers and pension plans.

Also, where the historical plan and trust documents have similar wording to the wording considered in the Kerry case, many employers may find that their ability to pay even routine plan administration expenses from the pension fund is severely curtailed. In such cases, all plan expenses, including routine administration expenses, may need to be paid from the employer’s own assets rather than from the pension fund, even if the plan is in a significant surplus position.

The impact of this decision on pension plans registered outside of Ontario is unclear. As an Ontario Divisional Court decision, the Kerry decision is not binding outside of Ontario. However, even with the apparent deficiencies in its analysis, as the first case to specifically consider the use of DB surplus to satisfy DC contribution obligations, and as one of the few cases to comment on the ability to pay plan expenses out of the pension fund, the Kerry decision may have some persuasive impact on the courts of other Canadian provinces.

Of particular note, however, is the March 2005 decision of the Québec Court of Appeal in Hydro-Québec, which ruled that the consent of retirees was not required in respect of a plan amendment providing for the payment of administration expenses from the plan fund. The Court noted that Québec pension legislation specifically authorizes such payment and also concluded it was not prohibited by the Civil Code of Québec. The Kerry decision may therefore have limited impact in Québec.

There has been no indication yet whether Kerry and/or the Superintendent will be appealing this decision. One hopes there will be an appeal so that the Ontario Court of Appeal will have the opportunity to analyze the issues in detail and produce a more reasoned decision.


1 Nolan v. Superintendent of Financial Services (March 15, 2006), Court File Nos. 178/04 and 520/04 (Ont.Div.Ct.) ("Kerry").

2 Kerry, para. 72.

3 Kerry, para. 88.

4 Section 22 of the PBA imposes a fiduciary standard of care on pension plan administrators.

5 Section 26 of the PBA requires an administrator to provide notice of adverse amendments to plan members, former members and other entitled to payments from the pension fund if the Superintendent requires.

Authors Credit: Anthony Devir is a partner in the firm's Pension & Benefits Department, practising exclusively in the pension and employee benefits law area. Louise Greig is an associate in the firm’s Pension & Benefits Department.

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.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.