Public comment closed
Comment Due Date

Thank you for providing your feedback on FSRA’s proposed Guidance on the revised Pension Plan Amendments Guidance.

The request for submissions is now closed.

We appreciate the comments and questions received to date and look forward to sharing with you the final Guidance. Stay up to date on Guidance releases on our newsroom. Follow us on LinkedIn and subscribe to our mailing list for quick updates.


To help ensure pension plan administrators are following the provisions of the Pension Benefits Act, FSRA has revised the Pension Plan Amendments Guidance after receiving substantive feedback from stakeholders in August 2022. 

The primary focus of these revisions is to clarify FSRA’s interpretation and approach concerning retroactive plan amendments. The guidance is now open for a second consultation, and we welcome feedback from our stakeholders and the public until January 19, 2024.

Learn more:


Before we begin, please make sure you do not include any personal or private financial information. If your inquiry does require this information be shared with us, please call us at 1-800-668-0128 or email us at [email protected] for instructions.

By submitting your content, you agree to have your materials posted on our engagement portal, used in reports and other materials prepared by Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) that may be shared with the public. Content is moderated so that all posts are respectful and professional. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.F.31, applies to all online content.

Notification Sent
Use left and right arrows to navigate between tabs.
Sector Comment Date posted Sort ascending
[2023-013] Cavalluzzo LPP, Goldblatt Partners LLP, Koskie Minsky, Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP, Wright Henry LLP

[2023-013] Mike Da Prat - United Steelworkers

[2023-013] JP Hornick - Ontario Public Service Employees Union/Syndicat des employés de la fonction publique de l’Ontario (OPSEU/SEFPO)

[2023-013] Ron Wells - United Steelworks Local 1005

[2023-013] Fred Hahn - Canadian Union of Public Employees

[2023-013] Laura Walton - Ontario Federation of Labour

[2023-013] Rohan Kumar, Michelle Rival - WTW

[2023-013] Ric Marrero, Karen Burnett - ACPM

[2023-013] Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, Stikeman Elliott LLP, Brown Mills Klinck Prezioso LLP, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Torys LLP - Law Firms

[2023-013] Noeline Simon - Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association
The CLHIA is pleased to enclose our members' comments on the consultation on revised Pension Plan Amendments Guidance. We look forward to engage with FSRA as you review and respond to stakeholder feedback.
[2023-013] Kevin Rozek - Segal
We support the proposed Pension Plan Amendments Guidance as drafted.
[2023-013] Anastasia Soldatos - Mercer

[2023-013] Tyler Jensen - OBA
Please see attached
[2023-013] Terry Searles
I am wondering about the Government changing the retirement age. Has it been changed from age 65 ti the age of 67?
I have heard too many stories so it is time to find out the right way.
Thank you
[2023-013] J.D. Vincent - Canadian Benefits Law
comment on PE0301INT (v.2). My comment relates to notice requirements for prospective adverse amendments, which is one of the stated purposes of this draft Guidance. Much of this Guidance is aimed at retroactive adverse amendments, but a small part of it is directed toward prospective adverse amendments. In my experience, the requirements of s. 26 regarding prospective adverse amendments are frequently taken lightly by employers to the detriment of plan members, typically without censure from FSRA. This draft Guidance does little or nothing to address this problem - for example, FSRA confirming the word "adverse" need not appear in the notice tends to blunt the legislative purpose of such notices. Typically employers employ various tactics to "spin" the adverse amendment to make it appear actually favorable or neutral to plan members.
One example is a frequent practice advocated by some of the major pension consulting firms in connection with DB-DC conversions. In this example, plan members are notified of a DB-DC conversion two or so years in advance of the actual conversion, mainly in an attempt to avoid employment law-related claims (eg constructive dismissal). These early notices do not comply with the s. 26 requirements, and usually do not include an invitation to submit comments to FSRA (in part because the actual plan conversion amendment is not prepared at that early date). Thus, while plan members are informed of the "adverse" amendment at that early date, they are not informed of their rights under s. 26, so typically no submissions to FSRA will be made. Then later at the time of plan conversion, members are provided with large amounts of information (dozens of pages) relating to their enrolment in the new DC plan, and buried somewhere deep in that information is the required language to comply with s. 26, which members typically do not notice or not act upon.
In part these problems related to s. 26 arise because of deficiencies in the legislation and how s. 26 has actually been administered by FSRA and its predecessors over time. On its face, s. 26 contemplates that the employer will first submit the adverse amendment to FSRA, and then that FSRA "shall require" notice of adverse amendment to be given. In practice that sequence rarely if ever occurs. Instead, the employer almost always sends the adverse amendment to plan members first, without filing with FSRA or seeking FSRA comments on it. Later, the employer files the notice with FSRA as evidence of its compliance with s. 26. In my experience FSRA either never reviews or never comments on the form of notice, and as a result such notices sometimes border on misrepresentation to employees about the nature of the change. This should change. FSRA should require that the employer file the adverse amendment notice with it first, before it is transmitted to plan members. FSRA should exercise its discretion to ensure that the form of notice is not misleading, which seems to be the way s. 26 was drafted but has not been applied.
The other problem is that, even if members make complaints to FSRA about adverse amendments, FSRA has little or no power under the legislation (or at least rarely exercises what powers it has) to correct the abuse of s. 26 notice requirements. This tends to encourage employers and consultants to find new and ever more creative ways to spin adverse amendment notices as being even positive developments for plan members.
[2023-013] Deborah Thompson - MEBCO
Please see attached
No questions have been asked about this consultation yet.