Université de Moncton pension-transfer age limit survives human-rights challenge

A former Université de Moncton employee’s age-discrimination complaint over a refused pension transfer has been dismissed under New Brunswick’s statutory exception for genuine pension plans.

In Bolland v L’Université de Moncton, 2026 CanLII 38688 (NB CTE), the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board, sitting as a human-rights board of inquiry, accepted that the age-based refusal was discriminatory on its face. But its March 19, 2026 decision found the pension-plan exception applied to the transfer restriction, including where an employee voluntarily leaves for another job.

The ruling did not remove Benoît Bolland’s entitlement to a pension. It rejected his challenge to the rule preventing him from transferring its value to his new employer’s plan.

Transfer option changed before he left

Bolland began a permanent university position in May 2018 and resigned in November 2020 to take federal employment. In January 2021, at age 57, he formally requested a transfer to the federal pension plan.

A university plan amendment effective in 2019 had eliminated the option of transferring 100 per cent of the pension’s commuted value for participants aged 55 or older. Commuted value is the lump sum representing the present value of future pension payments.

The university refused the transfer under that amendment. Bolland sought an exemption from the pension committee, which refused without reasons, and asked the pension superintendent to revoke the amendment’s registration. The superintendent concluded in March 2022 that it complied with pension legislation. The human-rights complaint followed.

Bolland argued that the transfer should have been possible, particularly because a transfer agreement between the university and federal government remained in force. The board nevertheless found the age restriction protected by the applicable statutory exception.

Which discrimination test applied?

The decisive question was not whether age played a role. That was undisputed. It was whether section 4(6)(a) of the Human Rights Act covered a pension-transfer rule triggered by an employee’s departure.

The Human Rights Commission argued that the exception did not apply because Bolland resigned; his employment did not end because of a pension-plan term. On that interpretation, the university would have had to justify the restriction under the more demanding general test associated with the Supreme Court of Canada’s Meiorin decision, including reasonable necessity and accommodation without undue hardship.

The inquiry rejected that narrow reading. It interpreted the pension exception in its statutory context and purpose, finding that it extends to rules functionally connected to the end of employment, whether departure is voluntary or involuntary. Transfer rights arise when the employment relationship ends.

That brought the case under the Supreme Court’s Potash framework. The focus was whether the pension plan was genuine, established in good faith to provide retirement benefits, rather than a device to defeat protected rights. It was not necessary to prove that each plan term met the separate workplace-requirement test.

Financial evidence supported the plan’s legitimacy

The inquiry found both objective and subjective evidence of a bona fide plan. It was registered under pension legislation, subject to continuing regulatory obligations, and its documents established the legitimate purpose of paying retirement benefits.

Although that resolved the main test, the inquiry also examined why the amendment had been adopted. It accepted evidence of longstanding deficits, previous contribution increases and the cost of discretionary transfers.

The actuarial evidence explained that low interest rates increased the lump sums required to fund future benefits. A participant closer to retirement also left less time for investment returns before pension payments began. The inquiry accepted that limiting transfers protected the fund’s remaining assets and its ability to meet obligations to all members.

Administrators had considered preserving existing transfer rights, but concluded that doing so would postpone savings. The inquiry found the consultation and approval process reflected a good-faith response to documented financial pressures, not a discriminatory scheme.

Alternative statutory ground

The inquiry also gave an alternative reason for dismissal. If the human-rights exception did not cover the restriction, section 5 of the Pension Benefits Act gave that statute priority in the conflict identified here. The board found the pension legislation expressly permitted the transfer distinction and rejected treating the superintendent’s exemption power as a case-by-case human-rights accommodation mechanism.

No Charter challenge to the pension legislation’s validity was before the inquiry. Its decision therefore does not establish that every age-based pension rule is lawful: it applies the particular New Brunswick exceptions and legislative framework to this plan and transfer restriction.