Canada: Supreme Court Delivers The Final Word In Kerry: Welcome News For Pension Plan Sponsors

Last Updated: August 18 2009
Article by Gary Nachshen, Andrea Boctor and Angela Waite

On August 7, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) released its highly anticipated decision in the Kerry case.1 The decision provides certainty and direction on a number of issues relevant to nearly every pension plan sponsor in Canada. The decision sets out the following principles:

  • Where the plan documents do not forbid it, defined benefit (DB) surplus may be used to fund (i.e. to "cross-subsidize") defined contribution (DC) contributions;
  • Where the plan documents do not forbid it, reasonable and appropriate plan expenses may be paid out of the pension fund;
  • Where expenses may be paid out of the pension fund, employers that perform some of their pension plan administration in-house may charge reasonable expenses associated with such administration to the fund;
  • Retroactive amendments to pension plans are valid if authorized by statute;
  • Costs associated with pension litigation will not be automatically paid out of the pension fund; and
  • The Ontario Financial Services Tribunal will receive considerable deference in its decisions concerning the interpretation of a pension plan text or the interplay between the Pension Benefits Act and a plan text.


More generally, Kerry sounds a retreat from the rote application of trust-law principles to the resolution of pension plan disputes, an approach that has held sway in the courts for much of the past two decades in Canada.

Background

Before reaching the SCC, Kerry originated from two decisions of Ontario's Superintendent of Financial Services (the Superintendent), which were then appealed successively to the Financial Services Tribunal (the Tribunal), the Divisional Court, and the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Kerry (Canada) Inc. (the Company) sponsored a defined-benefit pension plan (the Plan) established by a predecessor corporation in 1954. The original Plan trust provided that contributions to the Plan were to be used for the "exclusive benefit" of Plan members and, other than to specify that trustee fees must be paid by the employer, was silent on the payment of plan expenses. In 1975, the Plan text was amended to allow for third-party plan expenses to be paid from the pension fund, although it was not until 1985 that the Company actually started paying such expenses out of the fund. In 1985, the Company also began taking contribution holidays as the Plan had accumulated a substantial surplus.

In 2000, the Company amended the Plan, introducing a DC provision. When the DC provision was introduced, existing members were given the option of converting their defined benefits to the DC provision or remaining in the DB provision of the Plan. The DB component was closed off to new members, all of whom were steered into the DC component. The 2000 amendment to the Plan creating the DC provision established a new funding vehicle for the latter, which was seemingly separate from the DB trust.

Following the amendment in 2000, a group of former employees and current plan members asked the Superintendent to invalidate the contribution holidays that the Company had taken since 1985, the Company's use of pension fund assets to pay plan expenses, and its use of the surplus from the DB provision to fund the DC provision.

The case then went to the Tribunal, which delivered decisions on the expenses and cross-subsidization issues, and also addressed whether the members' litigation costs were payable out of the Plan's assets. On the expenses issue, the Tribunal essentially said that the "exclusive benefit" language in the Plan's original 1954 trust permitted expenses incurred for the primary benefit of members to be payable from the Plan's assets and that a pension plan's administrative expenses are incurred for the primary benefit of its members. On the cross-subsidization issue, the Tribunal blessed the practice of using DB surplus to fund DC contributions in principle, but required the Company either to retroactively amend the Plan to make DC members beneficiaries of the DB trust or to repay the contribution holiday it had enjoyed through cross-subsidization. The Company chose the retroactive-amendment approach. On costs, the Tribunal ruled that it did not have the authority to order costs be paid from the Plan fund.

At the Divisional Court, where the hearing took place immediately following the SCC's 2004 decision in the Monsanto case,2 the Court determined that the Tribunal's decisions were to be reviewed on a correctness standard (i.e. the Tribunal had to be correct in law in its analysis and not just reasonable as to its decisions) and that the Tribunal was wrong on the cross-subsidization and expenses issues. The Company was ordered to repay an amount equal to all the expenses it had paid out of the fund since 1985, and the 2000 amendment adding the DC provision was held to be invalid. The Divisional Court did hold, however, that the parties' legal costs were not payable from the Plan.

In 2007, at the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Company won on all material points. In what was heralded as an employer-friendly decision by Justice Eileen Gillese, the Court distinguished Monsanto and determined that the Tribunal's original decisions needed only to be reasonable and not, as the SCC had suggested only three years prior, correct. It endorsed the Tribunal's decisions on the payment of expenses and cross-subsidization. Laying down very broad principles that could be made applicable to many pension plans, Justice Gillese determined that there is nothing inherently wrong with using DB surplus to fund DC contributions where the plan text and trust agreement in question do not prohibit it. On the expenses issue, she also concluded that unless explicitly prohibited by a pension plan text, expenses that are reasonable and appropriate in the administration of a plan may be paid out of the Plan fund to third-party service providers, though not to the employer/administrator itself.

The SCC granted the members leave to appeal.

Supreme Court of Canada decision

Cross-subsidization

The most contentious issue in Kerry, as evidenced by the dissent on this issue of Justices LeBel and Fish,3 was whether surplus accumulated in the DB provision of the Plan could be used to satisfy employer contributions to the DC provision of the Plan; that is, to cross-subsidize. The majority decision of the Court authored by Justice Rothstein held confidently and succinctly that it could be so used, provided that DC members were also beneficiaries of the original DB trust.

On this latter requirement, the initial 2000 Plan amendment that added the DC provision was, to be kind, unclear. Not to be deterred on its path, however, the majority of the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that a retroactive amendment to the Plan clarifying that DC members were beneficiaries of the DB trust, thus enabling the cross-subsidization, was not prohibited by the Pension Benefits Act.

The SCC's endorsement of this aspect of the Tribunal's decision may signal a new willingness to hold employers to a less rigorous standard with respect to plan drafting and to allow the employer's intent to rule the day in pension disputes. Although it is certainly preferable to have all plan documents precisely reflect the employer's intent, if some scope for stylistic flexibility is henceforth to be afforded employers and their professional advisers, that would be most welcome.

Ultimately, the majority found that, with the retroactive amendments, there was one plan and one trust fund and that the use of the trust funds for the benefit of the DC members did not infringe the exclusive benefit provisions. The majority did not examine the hypothetical question of whether treating DC members as beneficiaries of the same trust might potentially expose any of the assets in their DC plan accounts to a deficit that could subsequently arise in the DB portion of the pension fund.

Plan expenses

On the issue of whether administrative expenses are properly payable from the Plan fund, the SCC agreed with the Court of Appeal and the Tribunal that reasonable plan expenses are payable out of a pension plan's assets unless the plan documents explicitly prohibit the practice. The SCC reasoned that the legitimacy and reasonableness of the costs incurred are the key issues when determining whether plan expenses can be paid from a pension fund and thus, where plan expenses are bona fide expenses necessary for the administration of the pension plan, such expenses can be paid out of the fund.

The SCC, however, went further than the Tribunal or Court of Appeal, and was more generous to employers. At paragraphs 60 and 65, Justice Rothstein delivered the following "gift" to plan sponsors:

"...in my view whether services are provided by third parties or the employer itself is immaterial as long as the expenses charged are reasonable and the services necessary."

"Where trust funds may be used for the payment of plan expenses for services required by the plan, the distinction between whether the services are provided by the settler or a third party is artificial. The only consideration is whether funds can be used to pay expenses and the legitimacy and reasonableness of the costs incurred. To the extent that the expenses at issue are bona fide expenses necessary to the administration of the pension plan, it should not matter whether the expenses are owed to a third party or to the employer itself. There is no reason in principle why the employer should be obliged to contract out such services."

The significance of the above passages will not be lost on any plan sponsor that devotes HR employees and long hours towards the administration of its plan and may be looking for some pecuniary reimbursement for such devotion.

Costs in pension litigation

While often referenced merely as a footnote or not at all in discussions on Kerry, the decision reached by all levels of court is also significant on the question of whether the pension plan at issue should fund the legal battles it spawns. The SCC laid down some broad principles as to when legal costs might be payable from a pension fund and, in the end, determined that the members' costs in relation to the present litigation were not payable from the Plan. The SCC agreed with the Court of Appeal in finding that where litigation is not solely about determining how to properly administer a pension fund, but is adversarial in nature, no costs are payable from the fund.

Further, it was recognized that consideration must be given to the significant economic fact that when an employer settles a pension trust it will often continue to have contribution obligations to the trust fund. In that case, awarding costs out of the pension fund could detrimentally impact the employer, as such a cost award would reduce the surplus and thereby accelerate the recommencement of employer contributions. Time will tell, but it would not be a surprising result if fewer pension cases make it to court when members face the prospect of paying their own expensive legal bill.

Standard of review

In what was effectively a bit of an about-face on the issue of the deference to be afforded the Tribunal, the SCC distinguished Monsanto and ruled that the Tribunal's decision on the issue of plan interpretation needed only be reasonable and not correct. This should be welcome news to the true experts who sit on and devote countless hours to the Tribunal, and whose decisions may therefore turn out to prove more frequently the last word on the pension cases they hear.

Conclusion

While this final chapter of the Kerry saga will, undoubtedly, be fiercely debated in the coming weeks and months, if not years, employers can finally breathe a collective sigh of relief on certain issues. Essentially, so long as plan documentation permits it, plan sponsors no longer have to question the permissibility of cross-subsidization or the payment of plan expenses from the plan's assets. In fact, if expenses may be paid from the plan, plan sponsors should henceforth be able to recoup from the pension fund the cost of reasonable and necessary administrative services provided to administer the pension plan in-house. Finally, plan sponsors may even be able to breathe a bit easier now, knowing that less-than-perfect drafting of plan documents will not always be catastrophic.

Some commentators will no doubt argue that Kerry will further erode the security net for employees participating in pension plans with both DB and DC components. But in the end, the Kerry case may actually prove to encourage the continuation of more DB and/or DC pension plans since, with this decision, they may have just become more feasible for many plan sponsors.

Footnotes

1 Nolan v. Kerry (Canada) Inc. 2009 SCC 39.
2 Among other things, the Monsanto decision determined that the Tribunal was not endowed with any particular expertise in the interpretation of the Pension Benefits Act. As such, the SCC held in Monsanto that as a matter of administrative law, the Tribunal's decisions were to be reviewed on the higher "correctness" standard as opposed to a more deferential "reasonableness" standard.
3 The Supreme Court's decision in Kerry was unanimous on all other issues.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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