1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Lessons on Work-Related Fraud and Abuse

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners recently released its 2014 Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse (the “Report”), which provides interesting statistics and insights for HR professionals hoping to better understand and combat occupational fraud.

The Report is based on a global study of 1,483 cases of occupational fraud, which occurred in over 100 countries, including Canada. First published in 1996 and biennially since 2002, similar reports reveal fairly consistent patterns about how fraud is prevented, committed and detected – useful information for HR professionals and their lawyers.

At the front-line of fraud prevention efforts, HR professionals often create anti-fraud policies, investigate fraud allegations and discipline/terminate fraudsters. Labour and employment lawyers often assist with any wrongful termination or human rights claims that may ensue in the aftermath of investigations or terminations.

Useful and interesting statistics and insight from the Report include the following:

  • The impact of fraud is very significant: Estimates are that a typical organization loses as much as 5% its annual revenue to fraud. The Canadian companies in the study experienced a median loss of US $250,000. This is in addition to other losses, including reputational losses and damage to the morale of other employees.
  • A whistleblower policy is one of the most effective tools in combating fraud: Globally, “tips” continued to be the most common method of initially detecting fraud, accounting for 42.2% of frauds detected. Its relative effectiveness is evident in the fact that the second most common initial detection method was management review, which trailed at 16%. Over half of the tips were provided by employees and the tips were more effective in organizations with a hotline.

Despite the benefits of whistleblower policies and hotlines, according to the Report, of the organizations victimised by fraud, only 54% had a hotline mechanism and less than 11% provided rewards for whistleblowers. Based on the Report, employers should give careful consideration to implementing an effective whistleblower policy. Among other features, an effective whistleblower policy should include a hotline mechanism and should assure employees that they can speak up if something seems amiss without fear of reprisals.

  • It may be hard to see it coming: Only 5% of fraudsters in the study had been convicted of a previous fraud-related offence. 85.6% of all fraudsters in the study had never been criminally charged. Of the organizations that were able to provide data from past employment history, 81.7% of all fraudsters had never been previously punished or terminated because of a fraud. This means that the effectiveness of screening methods like criminal background checks and employment history screenings, while still useful best practices for many other reasons, may not be particularly effective for screening out fraudsters during the hiring process.
  • On the other hand, it may be easy to see it coming: Fraudsters in the study exhibited several behavioural clues which are “red flags” to the trained eye. Approximately 44% of fraudsters were living beyond their means while the fraud was ongoing, and 33% were experiencing known financial difficulties. The ability to identify these red flags may provide an early warning to victim organizations, and this in turn will limit the duration and impact of frauds.

This finding in particular indicates that there is solid business justification in HR strategies and training for promoting organizational cultures like “knowing one’s people” or “management by walking around”, because among other good reasons for these philosophies, they provide excellent opportunities to identify red flags.

  • Investigations and disciplinary procedures cannot be carried out in silos or in isolation: The Report seems to confirm what many experienced lawyers and HR professionals know anecdotally – one disciplinary issue is often the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If for example an employee has significant attendance issues, it is not uncommon to also find shoddy work and slippages in the employee’s record-keeping. The latter is often associated in one form or another with expense claim frauds or unintentional errors, for example. Where study participants were able to provide this type of data, 38% of fraudsters also engaged in at least one other type of misbehaviour, for example bullying, intimidation or excessive absenteeism – behaviours which are generally on HR’s radar. In addition, from the responses received, 25% of fraudsters had experienced one of several HR-related events immediately before or during the commission of fraud. The most common was a poor performance appraisal, which occurred in 11% of all cases.

The lesson for HR professionals and lawyers is that it is generally important that investigations be comprehensive, and this can be particularly important where fraud is alleged or suspected. A siloed approach to investigations can lead to late-in-the-game evidentiary surprises during investigations, disciplinary procedures or any ensuing legal proceedings.

Overall the Report provides insight which can help lawyers and HR professionals avoid some of the challenges associated with combatting occupational fraud and abuse.

Lessons on Work-Related Fraud and Abuse

SCC Says Suspension with Pay can Amount to Constructive Dismissal

A non-unionized employee on an indefinite suspension with pay successfully claimed that he was constructively dismissed by his employer and was entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal.

The case involved David Potter, an employee of the New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission.  When his relationship with the Commission started to deteriorate in the first half of a 7-year contract, Mr. Potter engaged in discussions with the Commission regarding a buyout of the remainder of his contract. Mr. Potter then took sick leave before the buyout negotiations were resolved and was advised during his sick leave not to return to work “until further direction”. Mr. Potter’s pay was continued during the suspension, but the Commission delegated Mr. Potter’s powers and duties to another person and, unbeknownst to Mr. Potter at the time, the Commission wrote to the Minister of Justice recommending the revocation of Mr. Potter’s appointment for cause.

Unlike an explicit termination of employment, constructive dismissal exists when the employer engages in an act or conduct that shows an intention to no longer be bound by the original employment contract. The Supreme Court acknowledged that the test for constructive dismissal has two branches.

The first branch consists of two “steps”, and requires a review of the express and implied terms of the contract. The first step requires that the employee establish that the employer’s unilateral change constituted a breach of either the implied or express terms of the employment contract and, if it does constitute such a breach, it must be found to substantially alter an essential term of the contract.  The second step of the first branch examines whether a reasonable person in the same situation as the employee would have felt that the essential terms of the employment contract were being substantially changed at the time the breach occurred based on the information known to the employee at the time of the breach.

The second branch requires an examination of whether the employer’s conduct demonstrates an intention not to be bound by the contract, giving the employee the right to treat the contract as being at an end.  Under the second branch of the test for constructive dismissal, constructive dismissal can be found even where there is no breach of any term in the employment contract, or where the breach is not substantial; it focuses on the employer’s actions in relation to the contract more generally.  When examining this branch, it is the totality of the employer’s conduct, including conduct engaged in by the employer of which the employee was not aware at the time, that is taken into consideration in determining the employer’s intent.

If either branch is established, the employee has the choice of either accepting the act or conduct engaged in by the employer, or, if the act or conduct affects the employment contract in a “fundamental” way, the employee can treat the employer’s conduct as a repudiation of the contract and sue for wrongful dismissal.

Applying the test above to the facts of the case, a majority of the Court found that there were no express or implied terms of Mr. Potter’s contract that permitted the Commission to suspend him indefinitely without explanation:  the Commission had an obligation to provide Mr. Potter with work. The Court found that the Commission had a duty to be honest, reasonable, candid and forthright in its suspension of Mr. Potter, and concluded that the Commission had not established that the suspension was reasonable in the circumstances; rather, it was reasonable for Mr. Potter to perceive the indefinite, unexplained, unauthorized and unilateral suspension as a substantial change to his contract, and he did not acquiesce to the change. Thus the first branch of the test for constructive dismissal had been proven.

This case is a warning about the use of indefinite suspensions, even if the employee is paid during such a suspension. When contemplating a suspension, employers should be mindful that the overriding question is whether the suspension is reasonable and justified. Employers must demonstrate good faith, including being honest and forthright.  If suspending an employee (even with pay), an employer should advise the employee of both the reasons for and the anticipated duration of the suspension.  Employers should also review their employment contracts to determine whether suspensions are expressly permitted, and if not expressly permitted, give consideration to adding a suspension clause to future employment contracts, or carefully negotiating a suspension clause into existing contracts, to reduce the risk of constructive dismissal.  Alternatively, if an employer has a policy on suspensions, this can assist in arguing that the terms of the contract were not violated.

Potter v New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10

SCC Says Suspension with Pay can Amount to Constructive Dismissal

BC and Ontario Employers Take Note: Upcoming Minimum Wage Changes

Ontario
Last fall the Ontario Employment Standards Act, 2000 was amended to index increases to the minimum wage to Ontario’s Consumer Price Index.  Putting that into effect, Ontario is raising the general minimum wage from $11 to $11.25 per hour, effective October 1, 2015.  The minimum wage rates in Ontario for jobs in special categories (liquor servers, homeworkers, students, etc.) are increasing at the same time, and those can be found here:  Minimum wage rates.

BC
The B.C. government has announced that it will also index increases in the general minimum hourly wage and the liquor server wage to B.C.’s Consumer Price Index.  As a result, effective September 15, 2015, the BC general minimum wage will increase from $10.25 to $10.45 and the liquor server wage from $9.00 to $9.20 per hour.  Also effective September 15, 2015, the daily rate for live-in home support workers and live-in camp leaders, as well as the monthly rates for resident caretakers and the farm worker piece rates (for harvesters of certain fruits and vegetables) will be increased proportionate to the 20-cent increase in the general minimum hourly wage.

,

BC and Ontario Employers Take Note: Upcoming Minimum Wage Changes

A Definitive Ruling on the Issue of Without Cause Terminations under the Canada Labour Code

Federally regulated employers take note.  The Federal Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that without cause dismissals are not automatically deemed to be “unjust” under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code (the “Code”).

For decades, adjudicators have been at odds with one another regarding the question of whether the Code permits dismissals on a without cause basis.  As a matter of background, the Code applies only to federally regulated employers such as banks, railways and telecoms.  After years of uncertainty in this area, the Federal Court of Appeal recently decided to end the discord and definitively determine the legal point.

In the case of Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Mr. Wilson was employed for 4.5 years before being terminated on a without cause basis and offered a common law package equal to about 6 months of pay.  Mr. Wilson chose not to sign a release in exchange for the offer and instead filed a complaint under the Code which alleged that he had been unjustly dismissed.

After both an adjudication and a Federal Court hearing, the matter proceeded to the Federal Court of Appeal, which found that a dismissal without cause is not automatically “unjust” under the Code and that adjudicators must examine the circumstances of each particular case in order to decide whether or not a dismissal is unjust.  In its analysis, the court determined that Part III of the Code (which contains exceptional remedies such as reinstatement of employment) is merely intended to offer employees more remedies than exist under the common law, but only if the dismissal is unjust.  The extra remedies granted under Part III do not, however, mean that all without cause dismissals under the Code are automatically unjust.

As a result, federally regulated employees who are terminated without cause must prove that they have been terminated unjustly if they want that conclusion to be drawn.  In practical terms, this means that where there is no finding of unjust dismissal, a federally regulated employee can be terminated without cause and simply provided with a notice or severance package.  In order to gain the benefit of Code remedies which do not exist under the common law, such as the right to reinstatement, the employee must go the extra step and establish that the without cause termination was “unjust”.

The decision in Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited can be found here: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/100689/index.do.

,

A Definitive Ruling on the Issue of Without Cause Terminations under the Canada Labour Code

Employers Be Aware: OSC Proposes Incentive-Based Whistleblower Program

The Ontario Securities Commission (the OSC) recently published “OSC Staff Consultation Paper 15-401” which sets out a proposed framework for an incentive-based whistleblower program. This program aims at incentivising whistleblowers to report Securities Act violations by offering a share of any monetary sanction or settlement resulting from the disclosure. With this publication, the OSC has also opened a 90 day comment period which ends on May 4, 2015.

Under the proposed framework, the OSC has discretion to grant eligible whistleblowers a financial award of up to 15% of monetary sanctions or settlements, to a maximum award of $1,500,000.00. Unlike similar regimes in other jurisdictions, the proposed framework grants awards based on the quantum of the final disposition, rather than on monies collected. The OSC hopes to encourage greater reporting by providing whistleblowers greater assurance that they will receive their reward.

In addition to the proposed whistleblower incentive payment, the OSC has also indicated it intends to request the Ontario government amend the Securities Act to provide specific whistleblower protection. This protection would include three new provisions providing:

  1. that whistleblower retaliation would violate the Securities Act, allowing OSC staff to commence a proceeding under section 127;
  2. that the whistleblower would have a civil right of action against a retaliatory employer; and,
  3. that contractual provisions designed to silence whistleblowers are unenforceable.

If enacted, these provisions would grant the OSC broad enforcement powers. On a finding of guilt under a section 127 proceeding, the OSC’s powers would include ordering the offender amend their workplace policies and practices, and pay a penalty up to $1,000,000.00. The civil right to action would allow a whistleblower to bypass the Ontario Labour Relations Board and seek punitive and restorative damages. The third provision could potentially make many confidentiality or non-disparagement clauses in employment contracts unenforceable. The OSC has further indicated a desire to extend these protections to whistleblowers who solely use internal reporting mechanisms.

In its current form, the framework penalizes companies which have ineffective internal whistleblower programs. The consultation paper proposes that a company’s failure to adequately address an internal complaint may eliminate credit they may otherwise get for cooperating with the OSC, and be used as an aggravating factor when recommending sanctions. The OSC is also specifically inviting comments on whether to require that whistleblowers must exhaust internal mechanisms before reporting to the OSC.

Despite no other Canadian securities regulator having published a comparable framework, the size of Ontario’s market means this initiative will have broad-reaching effects. Any company listed on the TSX, or which makes filings to the OSC, may be subject to this initiative when it comes into force. A similar regime by the Securities Exchange Commission in the United States launched in 2011 has already generated over 10,000 tips. If this is any indication, it is likely that once finalized this initiative will generate a significant number of new investigations for the OSC.

Please feel free to contact Jordan Deering of our Fraud, Corruption & Asset Recovery Group or Correna Jones of our Employment & Labour Group if you would like to discuss the application of this proposed framework to your particular circumstances.

Employers Be Aware: OSC Proposes Incentive-Based Whistleblower Program

On the Radar Screen: the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014

As we reported in a previous blog post that can be found here, the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014 makes some significant changes to several Ontario statutes.  The legislation received Royal Assent on November 20, 2014 and a copy can be found here, but the significant changes include the following:

1. Starting on October 1, 2015, it provides for increases (but not decreases) to the minimum wage under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (the “ESA”) based on the Ontario Consumer Price Index. The CPI will be announced by April of each year, with the minimum wage change to come into effect on October 1.  This will likely result in the minimum wage changing incrementally every year, creating an additional administrative burden on employers who pay their employees at or near the minimum wage.

2. It eliminates the $10,000 cap on the recovery of unpaid wages through Ministry of Labour Orders to Pay under the ESA.  This provision comes into force on February 20, 2015, although the cap still applies to orders made in respect of wages due prior to the date on which the provision comes into force.

3. It requires employers to provide each of their employees with a copy of the most recent poster published by the Ministry of Labour that provides information about the ESA. An employer must provide available translations of the poster if requested by an employee.  The poster must be provided to all employees within 30 days of the day on which the provision comes into force, and thereafter (for new employees) within 30 days of the day on which an individual becomes an employee of the employer.  This provision comes into force on May 20, 2015.

4. It increases the period of recovery of unpaid wages (i.e. the limitation period) under the ESA to two years, and gives Ministry of Labour inspectors the ability to order an employer to conduct a “self-audit”, whereby it examines its own records to ensure it is in compliance, after which the employer must report back to the officer on the level of compliance.  This provision comes into force on February 20, 2015.

5. It expands employment protections to cover all foreign employees who come to Ontario under an immigration or foreign temporary employee program (previously the protections had only been in place for live-in caregivers).  This provision comes into force on November 20, 2015.

6. It creates “joint liability” for a temporary help agency and its client for certain ESA violations, such as the failure to pay regular wages, overtime pay, and public holiday entitlements.  Although the temporary help agency still has the primary liability, the client is now jointly liable.  This provision comes into force on November 20, 2015.

7. It amends the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act to add “temporary help agencies” as a recognized definition, and to assign workplace injury and accident costs to the client of a temporary help agency when an employee is injured while performing work for the agency’s client.  This provision will come into force on a future date to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor, so it is unclear when it will take effect.

8. It expands coverage under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to include unpaid co-op students and other unpaid learners, which will give them protections such as the right to know about workplace hazards and the right to refuse unsafe work.  This provision came into force on November 20, 2014.

9. It amends the Labour Relations Act, 1995 in respect of the unionized construction industry’s “open period”, to decrease the time when construction workers can change their union representation (or apply to remove their union) from three months before the expiry of the current collective agreement down to two months.  This provision comes into force on May 20, 2015.

Particularly in respect of the changes to the ESA, these expanded powers will likely result in an increase in claims made to the Ministry of Labour, as this process is generally cheaper and faster than court-based civil litigation.

On the Radar Screen: the Stronger Workplaces for a Stronger Economy Act, 2014

Enforcing contracts: The importance of careful implementation

In the Ontario Divisional Court decision of Simpson v Global Warranty[1], the issue was the application of a specific termination clause in an employment contract where the employer violated the contract in the course of the termination.

The employer had laid the employee off, and had only paid out his termination entitlements several months later, when the layoff became permanent.  When the employee sued for additional amounts, the employer alleged just cause.

At trial, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had determined that the employee had been constructively dismissed when he was laid off, and that the employee had not been terminated for just cause.  On appeal, neither of these conclusions was in dispute.  The only issue on appeal was the quantum of severance, and in particular whether the employer could rely on the termination provision in light of its alleged breaches of the contract, such that the employee was entitled to a longer common law reasonable notice period.

The employee argued that a termination provision in an employment agreement should not apply where (1) the employee had been constructively dismissed; or (2) the employer had unsuccessfully alleged just cause for dismissal.  The employee argued that in both cases, the employer had breached the contract, and therefore could not claim the benefit of the termination clause.

The relevant clause of the employee’s contract stated:

[U]nless an employee is terminated for cause, an employee’s employment may be terminated at the sole discretion of the Employer and for any reason whatsoever upon providing the employee with one (1) weeks [sic] notice or pay in lieu thereof, subject to any additional notice, pay in lieu thereof or severance that may be required to meet the minimum requirements of the Employment Standards Act…

As the employer had refused to accept that the employee’s employment had been terminated when he had been laid off and consequently delayed payment, the employee was delayed in (a) receiving severance; and (b) his efforts to secure future employment (because he believed he might be recalled).

The Divisional Court found that the fact that the employer was in breach of the contract by not immediately paying the amount owed was not a breach “of an order of magnitude…as to disentitle the [employer] from the benefit of the termination provision”.[2]

The employee also argued that because the employer labelled the termination as a “lay off”, the employer could not rely on the clause, which only referenced “termination”.  This argument was rejected because the clause addressed the events that transpired:  termination without cause, which included constructive dismissal.

In dealing with the argument that the allegation of cause rendered the employer unable to rely on the termination provision, the Divisional Court distinguished the facts before it from those cases where an employer knowingly wrongfully terminates a contract for cause, which would repudiate the contract.  In Simpson the Divisional Court acknowledged that the termination was initially effected not for cause and the termination amounts were paid out; consequently there was no repudiation.  As such, the failed defence simply resulted in a finding that the employee was terminated without cause, the situation directly addressed in the termination clause.

This case identifies several potential pitfalls when it comes to the application of employment contracts, and in particular highlights the need for employers to carefully and correctly apply termination provisions at the time of termination.  While the employer here was ultimately successful, the case is a useful reminder of just how important it is to cross the “t’s” and dot the “i’s” when proceeding with a termination, to avoid disputes that could lead to costly litigation.

Enforcing contracts: The importance of careful implementation

Supreme Court of Canada Explains Constitutional Right to Collective Bargaining

In a decision released January 16, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada once again revisited how much constitutional protection is afforded to the collective bargaining process. In Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 1, the Court held that a special labour relations regime legislated for the RCMP infringed section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (freedom of association) and could not be justified as a reasonable limit under section 1. The relevant provisions were struck down, but will remain in effect for the rest of 2015 so that the Government can enact a replacement regime.

Collective bargaining was historically denied to RCMP members on the basis that it was necessary to preserve the RCMP’s stability, reliability, and image of neutrality. Initially, the RCMP was excluded outright from any labour relations scheme. Then, beginning in the 1970s, a series of reforms gradually allowed for some degree of representation, while limiting employees’ rights to be represented in grievances or other proceedings. At the time the case was heard, this system had evolved into three entities, with the Staff Relations Representative Program, or SRRP, at its core. The SRRP involves representatives who act as a point of contact with RCMP management but work under the assumption that management has the final say. The case was brought by several associations that lobby on behalf of RCMP officers, although none has ever been recognized as a collective bargaining agent by management or the Government.

The majority of the Court decided that the SRRP was an unconstitutional deprivation of collective bargaining rights. In doing so, the majority clarified what section 2(d) protects:

(1) The right to join with others and form associations;
(2) The right to join with others in pursuit of other constitutional rights; and
(3) The right to join with others on equal terms the power and strength of other groups.

The Court held that in deciding whether section 2(d) of the Charter has been violated, the question is whether there has been substantial interference with the employee’s right to a “meaningful process” of collective bargaining. This “meaningful process” essentially boils down to employee choice and independence from management. The requirement of employee choice is satisfied by a process that allows employees to have effective input. Employees may do this through creating associations, dissolving existing ones, and choosing representatives who can be held accountable.

In the Court’s view, the SRRP failed because the system did not allow the employees to choose their own representative. In addition, the system was not designed to provide the employees with sufficient independence from management. As explained by the Court, “independence” means that employees have effective input into the proposals that are put forward, they are represented separate from management’s structure, and they control their own activities. The SRRP failed on this ground as well. The program was an internal scheme controlled by management, and its very raison d’être was to resist independent association and create an alternative to unionization.

While the decision represents a more generous interpretation of section 2(d) than previous decisions, it is equally important to recognize what the majority held the Charter does not protect. There is still no constitutional right to strike (though this could change when the Court releases its decision in Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, which was heard last May), nor is there any requirement that the bargaining process be adversarial or that there be a particular labour relations scheme.

Elsewhere the Court has held that the Charter protects processes and activities, but does not guarantee outcomes. This principle was mentioned in the companion case Meredith v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 2, where the Court found that a statute limiting wage increases for the RCMP was constitutionally valid. Generally speaking, as long as a labour relations scheme allows employees to bargain independently without substantial interference from management, it should be able to withstand a constitutional challenge.

Supreme Court of Canada Explains Constitutional Right to Collective Bargaining

More news on the ORPP

On December 18th, 2014, the Ontario government released its consultation paper on the new Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (ORPP).

What’s important to note is that the government’s “preferred approach” is to impose the ORPP on Ontario employers who have defined contribution registered pension plans, group RRSPs, PRPPs and DPSPs.  The government plans to exempt employees who participate in comparable workplace pension plans from participating in the ORPP, but proposes to only include defined benefit and target benefit multi-employer pension plans in the definition of “comparable plan”.  However, this could be changed.

Not all workers in Ontario will be affected by the ORPP.  The government has confirmed that Ontario employees who work in federally regulated sectors, such as telecommunications and banking, will not be required to participate.  In addition, employees earning less than $3,500 and the self-employed are proposed to be exempt from participating.

The government is inviting submissions on the consultation paper until February 13, 2015.

For more information on the ORPP, please see our earlier blog postings on December 9, 2014 and July 28, 2014.

More news on the ORPP

Update on the new, mandatory Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

On December 8, 2014, the Ontario government introduced Bill 56: An Act to require the establishment of the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan regarding the establishment of the new, mandatory Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (ORPP) effective January 1, 2017.  Bill 56 provides information about additional ORPP legislation to come.  It also provides details about the administrative entity that will need to be set up to administer the ORPP and the collection of information that’s necessary for the purpose of establishing the ORPP.

The ORPP was introduced in the 2014 Ontario budget as a new “made-in-Ontario” solution to the federal government’s decision to not expand the CPP.  It will be similar to, and build on key features of, the CPP and will be publicly administered at arm’s length from the Ontario government.  Employers and employees who are required to participate in the ORPP would be required to contribute up to 1.9% each (total of 3.8%) on the employee’s earnings, up to a maximum earnings threshold of $90,000. Additional details about proposed features of the ORPP can be found in our earlier blog posting here.

All Ontario employers should be aware of the ORPP and how it might impact their business.

The main concern for most Ontario employers is whether they will be exempt from mandatory participation in the ORPP.  The only information released by the Ontario government so far is that employees who participate in a “comparable workplace pension plan” will be exempt.  It’s unclear what “comparable” means.  The legislation doesn’t tell us exactly what types of retirement savings plans will exempt employers from the ORPP.

We will continue to provide updates on the ORPP as information becomes available.

If you have questions about the ORPP or would like more information, please do not hesitate to contact one of the pensions and benefits experts at Dentons.

For more information from the Ontario government on the ORPP and Bill 56, click here.

,

Update on the new, mandatory Ontario Retirement Pension Plan