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 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