FKINP For an Ontario defined benefit pension plan, compare pension actuary proposals against the same funding-valuation assignment: plan provisions, valuation date, reconciled member and asset data, assumptions, contribution outputs and regulatory filing support. Eckler and Normandin Beaudry are actual consulting firms offering relevant services. A regulator, a federal public-sector actuarial office or a divorce-valuation specialist should not be treated as an equivalent bidder for this work.
Identify the plan and the required valuation
FSRA explains that defined benefit funding rests on actuarial calculations of the plan’s liabilities and that administrators must file actuarial valuation reports establishing funding and contribution requirements under the Pension Benefits Act regulations.[1] Confirm that Ontario is the applicable registration and funding jurisdiction, then identify the plan category, members in other jurisdictions and any special provisions.
Use Ontario Regulation 909 and the applicable FSRA guidance to have the appointed actuary identify the required valuation bases, filing cycle, deadline and contribution rules for this plan.[2] Do not copy another plan’s timetable or funding exemption. The engagement should distinguish an ordinary valuation from an early filing, plan amendment, wind-up, transaction or other assignment that may change the work required.
Separate funding valuation from the sponsor’s accounting valuation. A report prepared for financial statements is not automatically the regulatory funding report. If both are needed, specify the standards, assumptions, dates, recipients and deliverables for each, with a reconciliation of differences that management needs to understand.
Compare two relevant Canadian consulting firms
Eckler
Eckler’s defined benefit consulting page lists funding valuations and financial reporting, pension accounting valuations, funding strategy, risk management, governance, administration and investment consulting.[3] The firm also lists a Toronto office.[4] These are first-party service descriptions, not independent evidence of outcomes or a guarantee that every service is included in a particular engagement.
Proposal test: Ask the proposed team to separate the Ontario funding report from accounting, administration and investment work. Request the named lead and reviewer, relevant experience with the plan category, responsibility for data issues and the procedure for questions from FSRA. Confirm which additional services are optional rather than assuming a broad service list is a fixed-price package.
Normandin Beaudry
Normandin Beaudry’s actuarial valuation and funding-strategy page explicitly includes plans governed by Ontario and other provincial or federal rules and says its valuations are prepared in Montreal.[5] Its separate discussion of a mandatory Quebec funding policy must not be transferred to Ontario as a universal rule.
Proposal test: Ask how the assigned team applies the Ontario rules to this plan, coordinates with the administrator and custodian, reviews assumptions and supports filing. Confirm the deliverables and review arrangements for the funding strategy. A stated ability to serve Ontario is relevant; it does not establish the proposed staff, timetable or contractual responsibility.
Compare both firms on the same dimensions: applicable plan experience, named staff and review, data validation, valuation outputs, filing support, communication and total fees. Ask each to identify exclusions and dependencies. The cited pages do not establish a comparable price or service-level commitment for this particular plan.
Build a reconciled data package
Prepare the current plan text and amendments, prior valuation and related correspondence, member census, benefit records, payroll and contribution data, asset statements and investment information. Give the actuary a controlled inventory and a named owner for each dataset. Identify whether amendments or benefit changes have already been reflected in administration records.
- Membership: Reconcile opening and closing counts, including new entrants, retirements, terminations, deaths and transfers. Explain status changes rather than only sending the final extract.
- Benefits: Reconcile accrued service, pensionable earnings and benefit amounts to the relevant plan provisions. Flag missing histories and unusual cases.
- Assets: Connect the prior valuation assets to the current custodian or financial-statement totals through contributions, benefits, expenses, transfers and investment movement.
- Contributions: Reconcile expected and actual remittances, identify adjustments and assign unresolved differences.
- Data control: Record extract dates, versions, transfers, validation questions and approved corrections so the valuation can be reproduced.
Agree assumptions and decision outputs
Request an assumption memorandum explaining the actuarial bases used, material changes from the prior valuation and their effect on results. Ask the actuary to identify the professional standards and current guidance applied. Have the administrator and adviser agree how economic and demographic assumptions are reviewed and documented without implying that management may simply choose any desired funding result.
The statement of work should name the going-concern and solvency calculations or other bases required for this plan, the contribution and payment schedules, relevant margins or adjustments, and any funding-policy analysis included. Specify separate sensitivity or projection work if the sponsor needs to assess contribution volatility, benefit changes or investment decisions. An optional scenario study should not be confused with the statutory valuation result.
Ask for an explanation of the movement from the previous valuation, including experience, assumptions, plan changes and data corrections. This bridge helps the administrator understand a changed funding requirement and challenge unexpected results before signing or filing.
Control review, filing and implementation
Put a calendar in the engagement covering data delivery, issue resolution, draft results, technical review, administrator decisions, final sign-off, filing and implementation of contribution instructions. Have the actuary confirm the applicable legal dates and any conditions for a revised or early filing. Name who submits the report and forms, retains receipts and responds to follow-up requests.
Request the signing actuary’s qualifications and standing, the independent review process and relevant professional-liability arrangements. Define the administrator’s information, decision and filing responsibilities separately from the consultant’s preparation and advice. Appointment should leave no ambiguity about who acts when a deadline or unresolved data issue approaches.
Price the valuation and the continuing relationship
Ask for separate fees for the core funding valuation, accounting reports, additional scenarios, data cleanup, amendments, regulator questions and transition from the incumbent. Agree the assumptions behind the fee and what triggers approval for extra work. Obtain delivery dates, payment terms, termination rights and arrangements for access to records after the engagement ends.
Before acceptance, require the agreed signed report, assumption and reconciliation explanations, contribution schedule, supporting filing package and unresolved-issues record. Select the team whose plan-specific scope, review process and delivery responsibilities support the administrator’s Ontario funding decisions, rather than comparing unrelated actuarial services under one label.
References
- FSRA — Defined benefit pension plans: actuarial and funding (fsrao.ca)
- Ontario — Regulation 909 under the Pension Benefits Act (ontario.ca)
- Eckler — Defined Benefit Pension Consulting (eckler.ca)
- Eckler — Toronto office (eckler.ca)
- Normandin Beaudry — Actuarial valuation and funding strategy, including Ontario plans (normandin-beaudry.ca)
