← University
Deferred Compensation and What Happens When the Employer Disappears
0 of 4

The retirement incentive agreement was approved by the board of directors of an Alberta non-profit society in late 2016, following the announcement that the organization's long-serving executive director would be stepping down after 22 years of service. The board resolution authorized a monthly payment of $4,200 to the departing executive director for the remainder of her life, beginning on the 1st day of the month following her final day of employment. The resolution passed unanimously at a properly constituted board meeting, and the minutes recorded both the motion and the rationale: recognition of the executive director's decades of leadership and a desire to provide financial security in her retirement. What the minutes did not record, and what the board did not execute, was a standalone written agreement between the society and the executive director setting out the terms, conditions, and enforceability of this commitment.

The executive director retired in March 2017 at age 63, and payments began the following month. For the next 5 years, the society transferred $4,200 on the 1st of each month without incident. The executive director received $252,000 over that period and had every expectation that payments would continue for the rest of her life. During those same years, however, the society's financial position deteriorated. A major funding partner withdrew support, program revenues declined, and by early 2022, the board was confronting the prospect of insolvency. In June 2022, the board passed a resolution to begin voluntary dissolution under the Alberta Societies Act.

The wind-up process surfaced uncomfortable questions about the society's obligations. The executive director's retirement incentive arrangement appeared nowhere in the society's audited financial statements as a recognized liability. No actuarial estimate of its present value had ever been prepared. The society's legal counsel at the time of dissolution expressed uncertainty about whether the arrangement constituted a binding contractual obligation or something more precarious. Payments stopped in August 2022 after 64 months. The executive director, then 68 years old, was informed by letter that the society could no longer honour the commitment and that dissolution would extinguish any remaining obligation.

The executive director retained employment counsel and brought an action against the society and, individually, against 3 members of the board who had served during the dissolution period. The claim alleged breach of contract, sought damages representing the present value of the remaining lifetime payments, and raised questions about fiduciary duty and the proper treatment of creditor claims during a society wind-up. The society defended on the basis that the arrangement was never a binding contract, that it was unenforceable for want of documentation, and that in any event the dissolution process would extinguish any surviving obligation.

What the Employee Should Have in Writing

When an employer promises to pay an employee money in the future, whether upon retirement, departure, or the occurrence of some specified event, the foundation of that promise matters enormously. The promise itself may be unambiguous in its intent. Both parties may understand perfectly well what was agreed. A board may pass a resolution, hands may be shaken, and everyone involved may act in good faith. But intent and understanding are not the same as enforceability, and enforceability is not the same as collectability. The distinction between these concepts becomes painfully clear when the employer begins to falter, when assets begin to move, when boards turn over and institutional memory fades, and when the employee finally attempts to collect what was promised only to discover that the promise, however real, was never adequately documented in a manner that would protect the employee's interests across the full arc of time during which payment was expected to flow.

Alberta law provides a framework for the creation and enforcement of contractual obligations, including deferred compensation arrangements. The common law of contracts applies with full force, meaning that a valid agreement requires offer, acceptance, consideration, certainty of terms, and an intention to create legal relations. The Employment Standards Code governs minimum standards for employment relationships in the province, though it does not address complex deferred compensation structures in the same manner it addresses wages, overtime, and vacation pay. The Business Corporations Act and the Societies Act, as of the date of authorship, establish the corporate and non-profit frameworks within which employers operate, including the mechanisms by which boards authorize commitments, the fiduciary duties of directors, and the procedures governing dissolution and wind-up. None of these statutes, however, substitute for prudent contractual drafting. An employee who relies on a board resolution alone, without a binding agreement that specifies the full contours of the arrangement, the security interests attached to it, and the remedies available upon default or dissolution, has placed their financial security in the hands of future boards, future financial circumstances, and future legal interpretations that they cannot control.

That’s the free preview

You’ve reached the end of what’s open to read. The rest of this lesson is part of a $79 course — purchasing unlocks it, or sign in if you already have access.