Input sought on Nova Scotia pension division and other family property matters
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.
Archive
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 MoreNew 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 MoreRick 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 MoreBy 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 MoreRick 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 MoreOn 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 MoreJoe 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 MoreNeil 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 MoreJoe 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 MoreOn 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