Skip to content

Input sought on Nova Scotia pension division and other family property matters

Dante Manna

The Nova Scotia Government is seeking input by way of public survey or written submissions on proposed changes to family property law that would, among other things, affect pension division between former spouses.

The Matrimonial Property Act (“MPA”) provides for division of property, including the pension benefits of either spouse, upon breakdown of a marriage or registered domestic partnership in the province.

Pension division is also regulated by the Pension Benefits Act (“PBA”). However, there is some inconsistency between the MPA and PBA on how pension assets can be divided. The background paper describes this situation as follows:

Under Nova Scotia pension law, a spouse or partner who is not the pension plan member is entitled to a maximum of 50% of the part of the pension that was earned during the relationship. Courts have, on occasion, ordered that a spouse or partner get more than 50% of the pension earned during the relationship. However, it is unclear if the pension plan administrator can do this.

The Government now proposes a new law to provide, among other things, that:

…if a court ordered one person to get more than 50%, the pension plan would be able to pay this amount. Further, in certain circumstances the court could order that the spouse who is not the pension plan member should get part of the pension that was earned before the relationship.

The survey asks questions including:

  • Are there circumstances where it would be important for the court to have the ability to order a spouse or common-law partner who is not the member or pensioner of the pension plan to receive greater than 50% of the pension earned during the marriage or common-law relationship?
  • Are there circumstances where it would be important for the court to have the ability to order the full amount of a pension, not just the portion earned during the marriage or relationship, to be split?

All Nova Scotians are invited to provide feedback on these and other questions by completing the online survey or making written submissions by February 20, 2020.  The Government will also be meeting with legal stakeholders later in February. Pension plan administrators would benefit from greater clarity in the law. Our Pensions and Benefits group would be pleased to discuss this consultation with you and assist with any submissions to the Government.


This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact a member of our Pensions & Benefits group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top