CIBC Asset Management Inc. and Renaissance Covered Call Income Fund

Headnote

National Policy 11-203 Process for Exemptive Relief Applications in Multiple Jurisdictions -- Mutual fund granted relief from preparing and filing interim management report of fund performance -- Fund had not commenced operations -- Manager is the sole unitholder.

Applicable Legislative Provisions

National Instrument 81-106 Investment Fund Continuous Disclosure, s. 4.2.

April 28, 2014

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES LEGISLATION OF ONTARIO (the Jurisdiction) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PROCESS FOR EXEMPTIVE RELIEF APPLICATIONS IN MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS AND IN THE MATTER OF CIBC ASSET MANAGEMENT INC. (the Filer) AND RENAISSANCE COVERED CALL INCOME FUND (the Fund)

DECISION

Background

The principal regulator in the Jurisdiction has received an application from the Filer, on behalf of the Fund, for a decision under the securities legislation of the Jurisdiction of the principal regulator (the Legislation) for an exemption, pursuant to section 17.1 of National Instrument 81-106 -- Investment Fund Continuous Disclosure (NI 81-106) from the requirement contained in section 4.2 of NI 81-106 to file a management report of fund performance (MRFP) for the interim period ended February 28, 2014 (the "Exemption Sought")

Under the Process for Exemptive Relief Applications in Multiple Jurisdictions (for a passport application):

(a) the Ontario Securities Commission is the principal regulator for this application; and

(b) the Filer has provided notice that section 4.7(1) of Multilateral Instrument 11-102 Passport System (MI 11-102) is to be relied upon in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut (the Passport Jurisdictions)

(The Jurisdiction and the Passport Jurisdictions are collectively, the Jurisdictions).

Interpretation

Terms defined in National Instrument 14-101 Definitions and MI 11-102 have the same meaning if used in this decision, unless otherwise defined in this decision.

Representations

This decision is based on the following facts represented by the Filer:

1. The Filer is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada and has its head office in Toronto, Ontario.

2. The Filer is the manager and trustee of the Fund.

3. The Fund is an open-ended mutual fund trust established and organized under the laws of the Province of Ontario on September 4, 2013 pursuant to an amended and restated master declaration of trust dated as of August 30, 2010, as amended.

4. The Fund became a reporting issuer under the applicable securities legislation of the Jurisdictions on September 10, 2013, following the issuance of a receipt by the principal regulator for the final simplified prospectus and annual information form of the Fund dated September 5, 2013.

5. Neither the Fund nor the Filer is in default of securities legislation in any of the Jurisdictions.

6. The Filer prepares and files MRFPs for all of its funds in a timely manner as required by NI 81-106.

7. The fiscal year end of the Fund is August 31. The initial interim period for the Fund ended February 28, 2014.

8. As of February 28, 2014, no securities were issued to the public. The Filer was the sole unitholder of the Fund.

9. As of February 28, 2014, the Fund held only cash in its portfolio.

10. The Filer will prepare and file financial statements for the Fund for the interim period ended February 28, 2014 as required by NI 81-106.

11. In the absence of the Exemption Sought, the Fund would be required to prepare and file in the Jurisdictions an interim MRFP for the period ended February 28, 2014 by April 29, 2014.

12. As the interim MRFP would have been the first MRFP filed by the Fund, it would not have contained financial highlights and past performance, in accordance with Part C, Item 2, Instruction (1) of Form 81-106F1 Contents of Annual and Interim Management Report of Fund Performance. The summary of investment portfolio would only have shown the cash held by the Fund, and the management discussion of fund performance would have been minimal as the Fund has not commenced operations.

13. Given the minimal amount of information that the Fund would have been able to provide in the interim MRFP, the cost of preparing, reviewing and filing the interim MRFP would outweigh any benefit.

Decision

The principal regulator is satisfied that the decision meets the test set out in the Legislation for the principal regulator to make the decision.

The decision of the principal regulator under the Legislation is that the Exemption Sought is granted.

"Vera Nunes"

Manager, Investment Funds Branch

Ontario Securities Commission