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


 
 

Let’s talk about batteries: Nova Scotia Power’s latest development in renewable energy

July 18, 2024

In conjunction with our upcoming sponsorship of the Halifax Chamber of Commerce luncheon, featuring the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources the Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson, we are pleased to present a Thought Leadership article highlighting…

Read More

“Sale” away: The SCC’s more flexible approach to exclusion clauses in contracts for the sale of goods

July 9, 2024

By Jennifer Taylor & Marina Luro A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision has clarified how to interpret exclusion clauses in sale of goods contracts. The Court in Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v Pine Valley…

Read More

Recent case re-confirms temporary ailment is not a disability

June 24, 2024

By Mark Tector and Tiegan A. Scott Decision On April 3, 2024, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench (“ABKB”) upheld a decision of the Chief of the Commissions and Tribunals (the “CCT Decision”), which held…

Read More

Compensation for expropriation: Fair, but not more than fair

June 17, 2024

By Erin Best, Stephen Penney, Robert Bradley, Megan Kieley1 and Elizabeth Fleet1 Expropriation is a live issue in Canadian courts. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to broaden the test for constructive expropriation in Annapolis…

Read More

Changes affecting federally regulated employers

June 10, 2024

By Killian McParland and Sophie Poulos There have been many changes in recent months affecting employers governed by federal labour and employment laws. In September 2024, Stewart McKelvey will be hosting a webinar to review…

Read More

Impending changes to Nova Scotia’s Workers’ Compensation Act – Gradual onset stress

June 4, 2024

By Mark Tector and Annie Gray What’s changing? Currently, workers’ compensation coverage in Nova Scotia applies to only a narrow subset of psychological injuries. Specifically, in Nova Scotia – as in all Atlantic Provinces –…

Read More

Appeal Courts uphold substantial costs awards for regulators

May 22, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Michiko Gartshore Professional regulators can incur substantial costs through discipline processes. These costs are often associated with investigations, hearings as well as committee member expenses and are an unfortunate by-product of…

Read More

Less than two weeks to go … Canada Supply Chain Transparency Reports are due May 31st

May 21, 2024

By Christine Pound, ICD.D., Twila Reid, ICD.D., Sarah Dever Letson, CIPP/C, Sheila Mecking, Hilary Newman, and Daniel Roth Introduction The first reports under the Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act (the…

Read More

Court upheld municipality’s refusal to disclose investigation report

May 1, 2024

By Sheila Mecking and Sarah Dever Letson A recent decision out of the Court of King’s Bench of New Brunswick,[1] upheld the Municipality of Tantramar’s decision to withhold a Workplace Assessment Report under section 20(1)…

Read More

Occupational Health and Safety sentencing decision – Nova Scotia

April 29, 2024

By Sean Kelly & Tiegan Scott Earlier this month, the Provincial Court of Nova Scotia issued its sentencing decision in R v The Brick Warehouse LP, 2024 NSPC 26, imposing a monetary penalty of $143,750 (i.e.,…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top