Français
Member Login
Search for:
Toggle navigation
Home
About ACPM
Board of Directors
Board Committees 2020-2021
National Committees
National Policy Committee (NPC)
Natl. Conference Planning Committee 2021
Leadership Program Committee (LPC)
Strategic Initiatives Committee (SIC)
Editorial Committee (EdCom)
Councils
Alberta Regional Council
Atlantic Regional Council
British Columbia Regional Council
Ontario Regional Council
Prairie Regional Council
Québec Regional Council
Federal Council
National Council
ACPM Annual Reports
ACPM Organizational Chart
ACPM Volunteer Recognition Awards
Advocacy
ACPM Publications
Federal Government
Provincial/Territorial Governments
Regulators
CAPSA
Archives
Memberships
General Membership
Plan Sponsor Membership
Leadership Program
Events
Roundtable Broadcasts
Webinars
Golf Tournament
Regional Events
National Conference
Join our mailing list
Members Only
Individual Membership Renewal/Update
ACPM Membership Directory
CONTACT Newsletters
Event Presentations
Webinar Recordings
Roundtable Broadcast Series
By-Laws, Charters & Policies
General Meetings
Contact Us
Other Surplus Entitlement Cases
Home
>
Advocacy
>
Archives
>
Other Surplus Entitlement Cases
SURPLUS ENTITLEMENT CASES
ISSUE
The issue of surplus is large and complex, and affects many other issues. For example, surplus distribution is at the heart of the Monsanto decision.
That said, ACPM feels the rules and laws dealing with pension plan surplus are dysfunctional and need fixing. The laws and their application are asymmetrical; they favour plan members and others able to apply political pressure.
Trust law is being interpreted by the courts in a very limited way (“classical” vs. “purpose” trust, or contract law). As a result, plan sponsors are bound by old plan/trust provisions developed many years ago under different circumstances. Often these provisions were “forced” onto plans as a result of administrative action by the Canada Revenue Agency.
Trust law interpretation makes it all but impossible to change the terms of the trusts. Regulatory authorities make it difficult, if not impossible, for plan sponsors to access surplus even when entitlement is clear. As a result, plan sponsors are not encouraged to adequately fund DB pension plans, or set up new DB plans.
ACTION TO DATE
Clarity and fairness in the treatment of plan surplus has been a constant theme of the ACPM. We have advocated our position in numerous documents and forums.
The ACPM Funding Task Force has addressed plan funding principles, including the treatment of surplus, in the 2005 Report “Back From the Brink: Securing the Future of Defined Benefit Pension Plans”.
FUTURE ACTION
The ACPM will continue to advocate for symmetry and fairness in the laws governing pension plan surplus.
Submissions/Publications
ACPM Funding Report, 2005
Careerpost
Leadership Supporters
The Observer
Retirement Literacy
Marketing Programs
Information Sign up