Skip to content

Pension plan recovers overpayments made to deceased

Level Chan and Dante Manna

On October 31, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Threlfall v Carleton University, 2019 SCC 50, dismissing an appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal. Carleton University successfully recovered $497,332.64 of pension payments it had made in respect of a retiree, Mr. R, after his death.

While the decision is based on specific provisions of the Civil Code of Quebec (“C.C.Q.”) and the applicable pension plan, it provides some guidance for pension plan administrators on death of beneficiaries and the ability to recover overpayments:

  • Entitlement to a pension benefit ends on death, subject to the plan terms (e.g. survivor benefits).
  • The person responsible for the beneficiary’s estate (e.g. the executor) may be held personally liable for overpayments and be required to repay funds.
  • Plan administrators should act as soon as they become aware of a death and can get retroactive recovery even if time has passed, and payments have been made, since the death.

Facts of the case – presumption of life

Mr. R, who suffered from Alzheimer’s, disappeared one day while walking near his home in rural Quebec. He died shortly thereafter but his remains were not discovered for several years. In his absence, he was presumed alive under art. 85 of the C.C.Q. and Carleton continued making his pension payments. That presumption lasts for up to seven years or until the absentee is located.

Mr. R.’s remains were located just before the end of the seven year period but his death was declared to have occurred at the beginning of the period (i.e. when he went missing). The C.C.Q. did not explicitly address Mr. R’s rights where the presumption of life had been rebutted.

Court decision – payments end on death, which occurred on disappearance

The Supreme Court majority’s decision confirmed restitution to Carleton retroactive to the date of Mr. R.’s actual death, rather than when his remains were found. While he was presumptively entitled to receive payments during the seven year period, those rights ended when his death was declared to be the earlier date.

The majority rejected the alternative, saying the C.C.Q. should not be interpreted so as to create a windfall to Mr. R or his beneficiaries at Carleton’s expense. They found that pension plans cannot be expected to continue benefits indefinitely and said that “Life, at some point, must move on,” and at that point (seven years, in Quebec), the protection of the absentee’s interests “take[s] a back seat to long-term certainty and pragmatism”.

Plan allowed to recover even though it had continued payments

Carleton was not initially notified of Mr. R’s mysterious disappearance. It learned of the story nearly a year later from media reports about Mr. R.  At that time, Carleton nearly stopped making payments to Mr. R. When it was presented a demand letter by Ms. T, who had been appointed to serve as tutor (guardian) in his absence and liquidator of Mr. R’s succession (executor of his estate), it reluctantly continued payments “without admission”. The courts concluded, based in part on Carleton’s reluctance to continue the payments, that the payments were made in error and could be recovered and not, contrary to Ms. T’s argument, made with liberal intention (gratis).

Unambiguous language terminating benefit

Like the lower courts, the Supreme Court majority agreed that the plan “unambiguously” terminated Carleton’s obligations on the date of death based on:

  • the plan text providing that payments cease when “the Member’s death occurs” (rather than when the Member’s death is certified); and
  • a memorandum of election in which Mr. R chose to draw a “single life pension”, payable monthly for his “remaining life only”, with all payments to stop upon his “death”.

The majority held that the words “life”, “remaining lifetime” and “death” were sufficiently clear and did not require further definition.

Guardian/executor required to repay overpayment

Carleton named Ms. T as defendant, both personally and in her capacities as tutor and liquidator.  The trial judge held that Ms. T could be personally liable, and that aspect was not challenged in either appellate decision.

Guidance for plan administrators

While the Carleton University decision relates specifically to an ambiguity in the C.C.Q., it is helpful to pension plans in that:

  • There is recognition that pension benefits end on death, subject to the terms of the pension plan. The termination of a lifetime benefit upon death of the individual (and entitlement to any survivor benefits) should be stated in clear language, both in the plan text and any election forms signed by the individual;
  • Courts can take a pragmatic approach to interpreting absentee legislation, affording plans:
    • the certainty of relying on the date of death provided in official documents; and
    • the finality that such certainty will be reached within a prescribed period;
  • A plan can be aware of a beneficiary’s absence and continue making payments “without admission”, while still preserving the right to argue those payments were made in error and recover overpayments; and
  • A claim to recover overpayments can be made against an estate executor or absentee guardian personally as well as the estate or absentee.

This update is intended for general information only. Should you have questions on the above, please contact a member of our Pensions & Benefits group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


Generic filters

 
 

Entry of business persons to Canada under CUSMA

July 3, 2020

Effective July 1, 2020, the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) was officially replaced by the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (“CUSMA”). Like NAFTA, CUSMA contains provisions for the temporary entry of foreign “business persons” to Canada…

Read More

The Supreme Court of Canada paves the way for class action lawsuit against Uber

June 26, 2020

Killian McParland and Jennifer Thompson In a decision released earlier today, Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller¹, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that an agreement requiring Uber drivers to go to arbitration instead of suing…

Read More

COVID-19 immigration update

June 24, 2020

*Last updated: June 24, 2020 (Originally published April 1, 2020) Kathleen Leighton Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there are various implications for the immigration world, including for those already in Canada, as well as those…

Read More

Bringing Corporate Governance Online: Can Atlantic Canadian private issuers leverage tech solutions while complying with provincial corporate statutes? Part 2: Electronically-signed share certificates

June 22, 2020

Stephanie Stapleford, Mike Carver, Matthew Craig, Kimberly MacLachlan and Christine Pound Part 2: Electronically-Signed Share Certificates The COVID-19 crisis, and federal, provincial and local government directives for individuals to continue complying with social distancing policies…

Read More

I am Terribly Vexed – Vexatious Litigants in Penney v. Newfoundland and Labrador, 2020 NLSC 46

June 22, 2020

Joe Thorne and Kara Harrington Vexatious litigants are a category of persons who misuse the court process through repeated improper, abusive, and/or meritless proceedings. Vexatious litigants may take many forms, but ultimately they are a…

Read More

Discovery: Atlantic Education & the Law – Issue 06

June 18, 2020

We are pleased to present the sixth issue of Discovery, our very own legal publication targeted to educational institutions in Atlantic Canada. During these unprecedented times, universities and colleges are encountering unique challenges of working…

Read More

Temporary lay off timeline extended to 26 weeks from 13… temporarily

June 15, 2020

Twila Reid and John Samms On Friday, June 12, 2020, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced it has extended the time period under section 50 of the Labour Standards Act (“the Act”) that converts…

Read More

Travelling to visit a cottage or summer home in Canada during COVID-19

June 15, 2020

  Kathleen Leighton Those who have vacation homes or cottages in Canada may be starting to form their summer plans as temperatures begin to rise. However, the ongoing pandemic has resulted in a host of…

Read More

Taking stock: Quick reference guide for government initiatives

June 5, 2020

*Flowchart below last updated June 2, 2020 (Originally published April 14, 2020) Dante Manna With the passing of Bill C-14, the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, No. 2 on April 11, 2020, the federal government has…

Read More

Proposed extension of time limits under various legislation may create significant disruption to foreign investments

May 29, 2020

Burtley Francis Recently, the Government published for public comment draft legislation referred to as the Time Limits and Other Periods Act (COVID-19). The underlying purpose of the draft legislation, which was published on May 20,…

Read More

Search Archive


Generic filters

Scroll To Top