Previously published in BENEFITSCANDA.COM

In 1987, the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) sold the assets of its Northern Stores Division (NSD) to the North West Company (NWC). The NWC made offers of employment to the NSD employees and agreed to provide a defined benefit plan with equivalent benefits and recognition of prior years of service. HBC transferred the plan assets attributable to the transferred employees to the NWC pension plan but did not transfer a proportionate share of the surplus. The transferred employees alleged that the pro-rata share of surplus should have been transferred as well.

The Supreme Court of Canada noted that plans may impose stricter requirements than specified by the legislation. In this case, however, the plan text expressly limited members' entitlements to their defined benefits. Although the 1984 trust agreement contained exclusive benefit and non-diversion language, the Court held that the trust agreement must be read with the then-existing terms of the plan, which (unlike Schmidt v. Air Products Canada Ltd.) expressly gave HBC the right to any surplus on plan termination. Therefore, the company was not required to transfer a pro-rata share of surplus. Interestingly, the Court commented on the legitimacy of the transaction, noting that the purchase price of the assets, including the pension plan surplus, was negotiated and the NWC was not willing to pay for the surplus.

The Court also affirmed its decision in Nolan v. Kerry (Canada) Inc. (2009), stating that without a statutory or common law requirement for the employer to pay plan expenses, any obligation to do so must arise from the text and context of the plan documentation. The plan documentation did not impose this obligation and, accordingly, plan expenses could be paid from the fund.

Torys has offices in Toronto, New York and Calgary

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on in that way. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.