Virtually everyone agrees that the confusion around the division of pensions upon marriage should be addressed legislatively, but unfortunately there is no unanimity as to the choice of solution.


Following a thorough review of the law and careful consideration of the policy issues and the submissions that were made to it, the LCO released recommendations in October of 2008. This report supplements those recommendations with background information, a detailed look at the problems surrounding pension division and a discussion of the issues and the reasons for our recommendations.




This section of the report covers types of pension plans, demographics, legal requirements, retirement age, death benefits, inflation, funding and plan wind-up.




On marriage breakdown, spouses are entitled under Ontario’s Family Law Act (FLA) to share equally in the value of all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage. Following determination of the total value of each spouse’s assets (including pension rights) on the valuation date, the spouse with the assets of higher value must pay to the other spouse an equalization payment amounting to half the difference in value




Under a defined contribution plan the value of rights is the aggregate of the contributions and investment yield as of the valuation date. With a defined benefit plan, however, one must determine the “present value” — the amount that would have to have been invested on valuation date in order for the original investment and accumulated earnings to be just adequate to fund the monthly benefits when the pension comes into pay.


There is some uncertainty regarding the methodology used to calculate a present value. The retirement method assumes that the employee will continue to be employed, while under the termination method, pension value is assessed as if the member had terminated her employment on the valuation date. In most court decisions a preference is expressed for the termination method over the retirement method, although it appears that most courts were actually using a hybrid method.


The assumption that is made concerning likely retirement age can have a very substantial impact on valuation. (Other assumptions relevant to determining present value include the member’s date of death, future tax liability and future interest rates.) The Ontario Court of Appeal has held the retirement age is a question of fact, to be resolved on a balance of probabilities based on the evidence, an approach implicitly approved by the Supreme Court of Canada. While a statutory presumption of retirement at the mid-way point between the earliest date on which the member could take an unreduced pension and the normal retirement date might be seen as having some advantages, it does not appear feasible, given the complexity and diversity of pension plan options and the multitude of different scenarios that could arise.


If pensions are to remain within the equalization regime, they must be valued, and with that comes the risk (indeed, virtual inevitability) of post-equalization changes in value, as it does with any property.




If one spouse owes the other an equalization payment and is in that position because of the value of her rights under a pension plan, there are essentially three options.


Trade of Cash or Other Assets


The member spouse retains exclusive rights to the pension and defrays the equalization debt with cash or other property, if this is feasible.



A member who makes an asset trade may later encounter “double dipping”; after having paid the debt to keep her pension intact, she finds that the other spouse is looking to the pension income for support. However, this problem is not unique to pensions; it can occur with any income-producing asset, and therefore no recommendation concerning it is made in this report, the scope of which is limited to pensions.


“If and When” Arrangements


Where an asset trade is not practical, the parties will likely have to enter into an “if and when” arrangement; equalization is deferred until the pension comes into pay, utilizing a trust imposed by a court order or domestic contract. There are several problems associated with these arrangements. The non-member spouse loses the benefit of immediate satisfaction of her entitlement and has no control over when it will be satisfied. Many “if and when” orders do not appear to be in accord with the intention behind the FLA, and both orders and agreements can run into conflict with the “50 per cent rule” under the Pension Benefits Act (PBA), which provides that no more than half of the pension benefits that accrued during marriage can be assigned in satisfaction of family property claims. Pension plan administrators also face problems arising from the drafting of “if and when” agreements and orders, which may be unclear or inadequate. Other potential difficulties include the ending of the non-member spouse’s entitlement to share in the pension payments when the member spouse dies, reduction of the pension benefit because of the winding up of the plan and taxation issues.


Lump Sum Transfer on Termination


Where the member’s employment is terminated, the member can require the plan administrator to transfer an amount equal to the commuted value of the pension benefit out of the plan to another pension plan or a locked-in retirement savings arrangement or to be applied to the purchase of a deferred life annuity; in that situation the PBA gives the non-member spouse parallel rights to a share of the commuted value.


Settlement: Proposals for Reform


A majority of Canadian jurisdictions that have legislated in this area adopted the “Immediate Settlement Method” (ISM), in which there is an immediate transfer of a share of the value of the member’s pension to a locked-in RRSP or other vehicle that will later provide retirement income for the non-member spouse. Three provinces adopted the Deferred Settlement Method (DSM); pension division occurs at a future point, at which time the non-member spouse receives a separate pension from the member’s plan. The arguments favouring these different approaches are discussed in subsection C of section 7.




The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) provides for a division of credits upon marriage breakdown unless the spouses have agreed otherwise and provincial legislation permits such agreements. Ontario has not enacted permissive legislation of this nature.


The FLA property provisions do not apply to common law couples, but they may face the same problem of a lack of good settlement options as married couples face.



A. Pensions and the FLA Equalization Regime


Removing pensions from the equalization regime could lead to unfairness between spouses who would be in the same net asset position if the pension were not excluded, as well as less flexibility in relation to other family property that remains within the regime. Other retirement vehicle assets, such as RRSPs, are not excluded.


Despite the wording of the FLA, the courts have held that unvested rights are property for purposes of the equalization regime and there is no good reason to reverse this.


B. Valuation of Rights under a Defined Benefit Plan


The hybrid method is the valuation method that strikes the fairest balance between the parties; any lingering uncertainty in this area should be eliminated.


C. Settlement: Defined Benefit Pension Not Yet in Pay


Many of the arguments made in support of or against the ISM or DSM overstate the case.


The ISM provides a “clean break”, but under the DSM the former spouses would deal with the plan administrator, not each other.


The pro-DSM contention that the pension is paid for disproportionately through early-career contributions is not relevant in the case of defined benefit pensions. But ISM advocates are incorrect that no part of a post-separation increase in value can derive from the married years.


Although uniformity of the law is desirable, the contention that adoption of the ISM would contribute to uniformity is not convincing, given that there are three DSM provinces.


The argument that adoption of a DSM approach avoids the problems of ultimate actual value differing from valuation date value ignores the fact that the valuation date value of almost any property might be more or less than its value at some later point.


The anti-ISM argument that giving the non-member spouse a lump sum to invest could be problematic for those unsophisticated in financial matters is valid, but this same concern can arise where the pension is not divided because the member trades other assets; it can in any event be addressed through a new provinc