Tag: pension benefits act

10 Apr

The Policy of Setting Policy: Cotnam v Rousseau and Judicial Activism

Garrett Horrocks Beneficiary Designations, Estate & Trust, Estate Planning, Litigation, Pension Benefits, Public Policy, RRSPs/Insurance Policies, Support After Death Tags: , , , , 0 Comments

The practice of injecting policy considerations into court decisions has long been a tenet of the Ontario judiciary.  However, such considerations may arguably raise questions that go beyond the scope of the decision.  Cotnam v Rousseau, 2018 ONSC 216, is one such case.

In Cotnam, the Court was tasked with determining whether a pre-retirement death benefit received by a surviving spouse was available to be clawed back into an Estate pursuant to section 72 of the Succession Law Reform Act (the “SLRA”).  The Respondent took the position that section 48 of the Pension Benefits Act (the “PBA”) sheltered the death benefit from being clawed back given that she was the spouse of the Deceased.  The Court disagreed and held that such benefits ought to be available for claw back in order to prevent irrational outcomes resulting from their exclusion.

In the context of the facts at play in Cotnam, the Court reasoned in favour of equity, in particular, to ensure a dependant disabled child of the Deceased was properly provided for. However, the Court’s reasons appear to gloss over a fundamental conflict between the SLRA and the PBA, a clash about which the estates bar might have appreciated some judicial commentary.  Specifically, the Court held that the provisions of the SLRA ascribing pension death benefits as available to satisfy a claim of dependant’s relief ought to prevail over the PBA’s provisions sheltering them from claw back.

Section 114 of the PBA provides that, “[i]n the event of a conflict between this Act and any other Act […] [the PBA] prevails unless the other Act states that it is to prevail over [the PBA].”  The SLRA, in contrast, is silent as to whether its provisions are to prevail over those of the PBA.

However, the Court’s reasons make no mention of the interplay between section 114 of the PBA and the equities of ensuring the dependant daughter in Cotnam was properly provided for.  While we may opine on the fact that the outcome in Cotnam favours equity over rote statutory interpretation, the estates bar is left to grapple with the apparent inconsistency with the intention of the Ontario legislature, and whether it will affect similar decisions going forward.  As of this date, no written decisions have yet interpreted Cotnam, nor has the decision been appealed.  Accordingly, it may be some time before the impact of the decision, if any, is felt.

Thanks for reading.

Garrett Horrocks

If you enjoyed this blog, please consider these other related posts:

Dependant Support and Pre-Retirement Death Benefits

Rehel v Methot: Life Income Funds and Spousal Entitlements

05 Feb

Rehel v Methot: Life Income Funds and Spousal Entitlements

Umair Beneficiary Designations, Estate Planning, Executors and Trustees, Litigation, Pension Benefits, Trustees, Wills Tags: , , , , 0 Comments

In the recent case of Rehel v Methot, 2017 ONSC 7529, the Honourable Justice Gomery was asked to provide directions regarding the entitlement to money held in a life income fund account owned by the deceased testator.

Background Facts

William (the “Deceased”) made a Last Will and Testament one day before he committed suicide. At the time of his death, the Deceased held a life income fund account (the “Account”) at Scotiabank. The Deceased’s spouse, Sharon (“Sharon”) was named as the beneficiary of the Account at the time that it was opened in 2013.

However, in his Will, the Deceased directed his Estate Trustee to use the funds in the Account to pay off any debts owing at the time of the Deceased’s death. The Estate Trustee took the position that the designation under the Will replaced the prior beneficiary designation.

Application of Provincial Pension Legislation

Before engaging in a discussion over which designation should prevail, the first question before the Court was whether Sharon was automatically entitled to the proceeds of the Account as the Deceased’s surviving spouse.

The Deceased and Sharon were married in Quebec in 2005, and moved to Ontario in 2008. However, the money in the Account was from a pension plan registered in Quebec. The Court was asked to consider if provincial pension legislation in Ontario or Quebec was applicable to the distribution of the Account.

Subsection 48(1) of the Ontario Pension Benefits Act states that if a member who is entitled to a deferred pension under a pension plan dies before payment of the first installment, the surviving spouse of the person is entitled to receive payment. However, under subsection 48(3) of the Act, a spouse is not automatically entitled to the proceeds of a deferred pension if the parties are “living separate and apart” at the time of death.

The Estate Trustee argued that subsection 48(3) applied, and adduced evidence that suggested that the parties were separated as of the time of the Deceased’s death. Sharon filed an affidavit disputing that she had separated from the Deceased, and asserted that she and the Deceased had only discussed the possibility of a separation at the time of his death.

The Estate Trustee filed additional affidavit evidence that led Justice Gomery to conclude “beyond a doubt” that the marriage had broken down and that the parties were negotiating their separation from each other. Justice Gomery thus concluded that the parties were separated under Ontario law, and that Sharon was not automatically entitled to the proceeds under the Pension Benefits Act.

Another question before the Court was whether Quebec law applied to the question of Sharon’s entitlement to the Account. Under Quebec pension legislation, the automatic right to spousal benefits is “terminated by separation from bed and board.” The Estate Trustee asserted that the application of Quebec law made no difference, whereas Sharon asserted that “separation from bed and board” meant something different than “living separate and apart.”

Justice Gomery noted that the law of another province is “foreign law,” and must be proved. Absent such proof, Justice Gomery held that the Court must assume that the foreign law is the same as Ontario law. Thus, Justice Gomery concluded that Sharon was not entitled to the death benefit under the Deceased’s pension plan by right.

Next Question: Which Beneficiary Designation Prevails?

Given Justice Gomery’s conclusion that Sharon was not entitled to the Account by operation of statute, the Court concluded that Sharon would only be entitled to the funds in the Account if she was the designated beneficiary as of the Deceased’s death.

In tomorrow’s blog, I will discuss Justice Gomery’s discussion of the terms of the Deceased’s Will, and whether the direction to the Estate Trustee overrode the earlier designation in Sharon’s favour.

Thank you for reading,

Umair Abdul Qadir

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET