On February 25, 2016, the Ontario government tabled its 2016 Budget “Jobs for Today and Tomorrow” (“Budget”) and the corresponding Budget Bill, Bill 173, Jobs for Today and Tomorrow Act (Budget Measures), 2016 (“Bill 173”). In this FTR Now, we highlight some of the key proposals that are of particular interest to employers, human resources…
Category: Pension and Benefits
Ontario Government Announces Additional ORPP Design Details
Editor’s Note: Following publication of this communication, the Ontario government announced that the first wave of ORPP implementation will be delayed by one year to January 1, 2018. Please be sure to read our FTR Now of February 17, 2016 for updated information on this significant development, or contact your regular Hicks Morley lawyer for…
Deadline for Filing Amendments Relating to British Columbia’s PBSA Reform Extended
Significant reforms to the Pension Benefits Standards Act (“PBSA”) in British Columbia came into force on September 30, 2015. Originally, amendments to plans registered in British Columbia which reflect the new legislative requirements had to be filed by December 31, 2015. This week the British Columbia Financial Institutions Commission announced that the filing deadline will be extended to March 31,…
Reaching Out – Ninth Edition
Dear Friends, It has been an eventful few months since our Spring Edition of Reaching Out. With the playoff run by the Blue Jays and the federal election behind us, we are pleased to provide the Fall Edition of Reaching Out. Allison E. MacIsaac reviews current challenges related to gender identity and gender expression in the…
2015 Federal Election Update: ORPP or CPP – Which Will it be?
Editor’s Note: Following publication of this communication, the Ontario government announced that the first wave of ORPP implementation will be delayed by one year to January 1, 2018. Please be sure to read our FTR Now of February 17, 2016 for updated information on this significant development, or contact your regular Hicks Morley lawyer for…
Employer Permitted to Define “Spouse” under Benefit Plan to Exclude Married but Separated Spouses
In a recent decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (“Tribunal”) in VanderLinde v. Oshawa (City) (“VanderLinde”), the Tribunal found that it is not discriminatory for an employer to require that an employee’s legally married spouse be living with the employee as a condition of eligibility as a spouse under its group benefit plan. In…
SCC authorizes Québec class action regarding reduction of retiree benefits
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) recently released a unanimous decision authorizing a class action on behalf of retirees against their former employer, relating to announced changes to their supplemental health insurance plan (“Plan”). The case, Vivendi Canada Inc. v. Dell’Aniello, was decided under the specific wording of the Québec class proceedings statute. In 2009,…
Supreme Court of Canada Provides Clarity to the Deductibility of Income Replacement Benefits from Wrongful Dismissal Damages
The Supreme Court of Canada has provided some much needed clarity to the issue of the deductibility of income replacement benefits from wrongful dismissal damages in its long-awaited decision, IBM Canada Ltd. v. Waterman (“Waterman”). Justice Cromwell, writing for the majority of the Court, dealt with the deductibility of pension benefit payments in particular. Ultimately,…
BCCA Decision Affirms Clear Language Needed to Reserve Right to Change Retiree Benefits
A recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Lacey v. Weyerhaeuser, considered an employer’s right to unilaterally change post-retirement benefits. Although the retiree benefits at issue in this case had been voluntarily instituted, it was found that the employer had represented that the retiree benefits would be maintained on and after retirement, and…
Supreme Court of Canada Denies Leave to Appeal in Reduction of Retiree Benefits Case
Today, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) denied leave to appeal from a decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (“BCCA”) in Lacey v. Weyerhaeuser Company Limited. The case concerned changes to certain post-retirement benefits for retired salaried employees (“Retirees”) of Weyerhaeuser Company Limited (“Weyerhaeuser”), and a predecessor company. At issue were fully-funded post-retirement…