This Act amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to put liabilities tied to pension-plan solvency — including statutory “special payments” set out in the Pension Benefits Standards Regulations — ahead of many other claims in insolvency and restructuring proceedings. It also replaces section 40 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 so the federal Superintendent must prepare an annual report on plan funding and corrective actions, and the Minister must table that report in Parliament.
For employers, creditors and insolvency professionals the change is material: it elevates the practical cost of insolvency for employers with underfunded pension plans, alters creditor bargaining dynamics in CCAA restructurings, creates new valuation and proof tasks for trustees and monitors, and gives federal authorities recurring federal-level visibility into pension solvency across regulated plans.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds amounts equal to required pension “special payments” (as calculated under s.9 of the Pension Benefits Standards Regulations) and other solvency shortfalls to the statutory priority lists in the BIA (including ss.60 and 81.5–81.6) and to the CCAA priority list. It also requires the Superintendent to produce and the Minister to table an annual solvency report prepared after consulting the Chief Actuary.
Who It Affects
Defined-benefit pension plans, employers that sponsor them (including provincially regulated plans whose hypothetical federal liabilities are captured), unsecured and subordinated creditors in insolvencies, trustees and CCAA monitors, and federal and provincial pension regulators who will receive the new report.
Why It Matters
The change shifts creditor hierarchy in insolvency and restructuring, increasing the priority of pension-related claims relative to other unsecured claims and potentially altering restructuring feasibility and financing terms; the annual report centralizes federal oversight information that policymakers and markets can use to assess systemic pension funding risk.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core legal change is surgical: the Act inserts pension-related payment obligations into the statutory lists of prioritized claims that insolvency trustees and monitors must satisfy. It does this by referencing the “special payments” calculation in the Pension Benefits Standards Regulations (section 9) and by adding language that captures any other amounts needed to eliminate unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies.
Those sums are to be measured at prescribed trigger points — at the time a notice of intention or a proposal is filed under the BIA, or on the day CCAA proceedings commence — which fixes the valuation date for insolvency purposes.
The Act also covers two categories of amounts: (1) amounts that were actually required to be paid before insolvency (actual special payments) and (2) amounts that would have been required if the plan were federally regulated. The latter clause pulls provincially regulated plans into the priority framework by reference to a federal hypothetical calculation; that means a provincially regulated plan can generate a federal-priority claim based on what federal rules would have required.On reporting, the Act replaces the existing provision in the Pension Benefits Standards Act with an explicit annual-reporting obligation.
The Superintendent must consult the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions’ Chief Actuary, report on the operation of the Act and on how plans are meeting funding requirements (including corrective measures), and the Minister must table that report in each House of Parliament within the early sitting days after receipt; the Superintendent must then send the report to provincial finance ministers and securities commissions.Finally, the Act phases in its insolvency priority rules for plans that already existed before the amendments come into force: employers and companies that were participating in prescribed pension plans the day before the provisions take effect are exempt from sections dealing with the priority changes for four years. That transitional carve-out gives existing sponsors a temporary buffer while the new reporting and priority regime settles in.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Act adds “special payments” (as determined under s.9 of the Pension Benefits Standards Regulations, 1985) and any other amounts required to liquidate unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies to prioritized claims in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (including ss.60, 81.5 and 81.6).
Parallel amendments add the same pension-solvency amounts to the priority list in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (subparagraphs 6(6)(a)(ii) and (iii)), making them payable ahead of many unsecured claims in CCAA proceedings.
The replacement section 40 of the Pension Benefits Standards Act requires the Superintendent, after consulting the Chief Actuary, to submit an annual report on the Act’s operation and on pension plans’ success in meeting funding requirements, and obliges the Minister to table it in Parliament and transmit it to provincial finance ministers and securities commissions.
The amendments capture both actual required special payments and amounts that “would have been required” if a prescribed plan were regulated by an Act of Parliament, thereby bringing certain provincially regulated plans (by hypothetical federal calculation) into the federal-priority framework.
Transitional rules exempt employers and companies that participated in a prescribed pension plan the day before the new provisions come into force from the priority amendments for four years, delaying application for those existing plans.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds pension solvency sums to BIA priority claims
These sections amend multiple BIA provisions (notably s.60(1.5) and ss.81.5–81.6) to place specified pension-related sums ahead of many other claims in a bankruptcy or proposal. Practically, trustees must now account for statutory “special payments” and other solvency shortfalls when distributing estate funds, and valuations are locked to the time of notice-of-intention/proposal filings or other insolvency trigger points specified in the text. Enforcement will require trustees to obtain actuarial figures and to resolve disputes over calculation dates and assumptions during estate administration.
Mirrors pension priority in CCAA restructurings
The Act inserts the same pension-solvency amounts into the CCAA’s priority framework (subparagraphs 6(6)(a)(ii) and (iii)). For companies pursuing CCAA restructurings, monitors and courts must treat those pension claims as entitled to payment ahead of other unsecured claims unless otherwise ordered. That elevates pension obligations in restructuring negotiations, affects the feasibility analysis for plans of arrangement, and will factor into DIP financing and creditor voting because lenders and other creditors will price in the additional payment priority.
Creates a federally tabled annual solvency report
Section 40 is replaced to require the Superintendent, after consulting OSFI’s Chief Actuary, to prepare an annual report on how the Pension Benefits Standards Act operated and on pension plans’ success in meeting funding requirements (including corrective actions). The Minister must table the report in Parliament shortly after receipt, and the Superintendent must forward it to relevant provincial ministers and securities commissions. The provision builds a recurring, federal-level transparency mechanism intended to inform policymakers and market participants about systemic funding issues.
Four-year carve-out for existing plan sponsors
Transitional rules prevent the priority amendments (sections 2–5) from applying to employers or companies that participated in a prescribed pension plan the day before these sections come into force for a period of four years. That delay gives existing sponsors time to adapt, but it also creates different treatment between pre-existing and new plans during the transition window, which has implications for competitive parity and for the expectations of creditors negotiating with firms in different circumstances.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Defined-benefit pension plan members and retirees — they gain a stronger claim on the employer’s insolvency estate for special payments and solvency shortfalls, increasing the chance of improved recovery when sponsors fail.
- Pension regulators and policymakers — the mandated annual report gives federal authorities and, via transmission, provincial officials better, regular visibility into funding shortfalls and corrective measures, improving oversight and potential policy responses.
- Plan administrators and trustees — by elevating pension claims, the law clarifies a priority entitlement that can simplify certain recovery efforts and litigation strategy in insolvency contexts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers sponsoring underfunded defined-benefit plans — insolvency or restructuring will carry higher immediate payment obligations, reducing assets available for other creditors and potentially accelerating bankruptcy filings to avoid mounting liabilities.
- Unsecured creditors and suppliers — enhanced pension priorities reduce the estate share available to unsecured creditors, changing bargaining power in restructurings and the economics of trade credit for at-risk firms.
- Companies seeking debtor-in-possession or restructuring financing — lenders will factor the added pension priority into pricing and covenants, potentially increasing the cost of debtor financing or reducing available credit.
- Insolvency trustees, CCAA monitors and actuaries — proving, valuing and litigating pension shortfalls will increase administrative burdens and professional costs during estates and restructurings.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between securing better recoveries for pension beneficiaries by elevating pension shortfalls in the creditor hierarchy and preserving the flexibility and creditor confidence needed to keep distressed employers operating through restructurings; the mechanism that protects pensions also reallocates scarce estate value and can make reorganizations and rescue financing more difficult.
Several implementation and interaction challenges are baked into the amendments. First, measurement: the Act pins valuations to specific trigger dates (filing or commencement), but actuaries must translate plan funding rules into an insolvency-ready dollar figure and reconcile different actuarial assumptions.
Disputes over discount rates, solvency assumptions, and the treatment of non-pension assets will be fertile ground for litigation and will add cost and delay to trustee and monitor work.
Second, federal-provincial friction and legal complexity arise because the Act captures amounts that “would have been required” if a provincially regulated plan were subject to federal rules. That hypothetical overlay invites debate about which rules govern valuation and whether provincial statutory priorities or insurers’ responsibilities are displaced.
The four-year transitional carve-out eases immediate disruption for existing plans but creates a temporary two-tier regime that may distort corporate behaviour and creditor expectations.
Third, there is a trade-off between protecting pensioners and preserving restructuring viability. By elevating pension claims, the Act improves recoveries for beneficiaries but risks making compromises with other creditor classes harder to reach and new-money financing more expensive — outcomes that can reduce the viability of some going-concern reorganizations.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.