Equalization Claim by a Surviving Spouse

The Family Law Act (the Act) makes provision for an equalization claim by a surviving spouse. Section 6(2) of the Act allows a surviving married spouse (i.e. not a common law spouse) to elect between his or her succession rights under a will and his or her equalization claim under the Act.

For example, a husband dies and leaves an estate worth $2,100,000.00. In his will he leaves a bequest of $100,000.00 to his wife and the balance of his estate to his secretary. The surviving wife has a period of 6 months from the date of death to file her election if she wishes to make an equalization claim under the Act. In order to determine what is most beneficial for the surviving spouse she has to make a calculation of the value of her equalization claim. In order to make that calculation the surviving wife has to determine her Net Family Property (NFP) and the NFP of the husband. This requires knowing the values of all assets and debts of the parties at the date of marriage and at “valuation date”.

To continue with our example lets assume that that at the date of marriage they had no property. At “valuation date” the husband had $2,100,000.00 and the wife had $1,000,000.00 in net assets. [Note: In the case of a separation “valuation date” is the date of separation. In the case of an equalization claim following a death “valuation date” is the day before death]. Based on the facts set out above the surviving wife’s equalization claim would be ($2.1M - $1.0M = $1.1M / 2 = $550,000.00). Based on those facts, it would be financially advantageous for the wife to make an election to make an equalization claim (worth $550,000.00) rather than take her bequest under the will.

If the wife made the necessary election within the 6 month time limit, her right to an equalization claim would have priority over bequests in the will and dependents relief claims (other than dependent relief claims by the deceased’s children).

Recent statutory amendments have clarified the credits which are to be made against a surviving spouse’s equalization entitlement. The credits listed are as follows:

a) Benefits payable to the spouse pursuant to a life insurance policy on the life of the deceased spouse;

b) Lump sum benefits payable to the spouse pursuant to pension or similar plan payable as a result of the death of the deceased spouse; and

c) The value of property or a portion of property to which the surviving spouse becomes entitled by right of survivorship on the death of the deceased spouse.

So, in the example above, if the wife was, together with her husband, the joint owner of a home which had equity of $1.1M she would receive a benefit of $550,000.00 by way of survivorship. This “credit” would eliminate her equalization claim. In this circumstance the wife would be advised to take the said survivorship interest and the bequest under the will.

It quickly becomes apparent how complicated these sorts of cases can become. In real cases this complexity is often magnified by the difficulty in getting the necessary financial disclosure to make the necessary calculations in a timely fashion. Anyone considering making an election pursuant to the section 6(2) of the Act should obtain good legal advice and should do so as soon as possible.

- Philip W. Augustine for abblaw.ca

[The above article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you live in the Ottawa area and would like advice about a legal issue please email us or call 613-569-9500 to speak with one of our lawyers or a member of our staff.]

To Be or Not To Be (Married)

Introduction

Today, more couples are choosing to live together in a relationship resembling marriage, without the formalities of marriage. There are many different reasons why a couple may choose not to get married; however, just as choosing to get married has legal implications, so does choosing not to get married. One of the most notable legal implications of not getting married relates to the division of property when the relationship breaks down. So, if you make the decision not to get married, do you really know what you are (not) buying into?

Division of Property for Unmarried Couples

Division of property is dealt with in Part I of the Family Law Act. When married couples separate, generally speaking they are entitled to divide their property equally between the two spouses, regardless of who legally owns the property.[1] Under the Family Law Act, “spouses” are entitled to divide their property on the breakdown of the marriage. “Spouse” is defined as either (1) two people who are married to each other, or, (2) two people who entered into a marriage that is either void or voidable, in good faith. It does not include “common law couples” – even couples who have lived together for more than least 3 years, or are living together and are the parents of a child. So, what does that mean exactly? It means that common law couples cannot look to the Family Law Act to make a claim to a share of property that they do not own. Let’s look at an example:

Jack and Jill have been living together for the past 15 years. They are not married. They live in a quaint house owed by Jill that they both spent time furnishing, decorating and renovating. They have two cars. Both vehicles are jointly owned. Jack and Jill each have their own chequing account. They also have a joint savings account in which they both deposit money to save for a vacation. Jill has a fairly substantial pension with the federal government. Jack only has a modest RRSP. Jack was never worried about his retirement because he knew Jill had a large pension that could support them both. They never had any children. Suddenly, Jill tells Jack she is no longer happy and wishes to end the relationship.

Dividing Jack and Jill’s Property

When common law couples break up, lawyers look to the title, or ownership of the property to determine how it will be shared. If the title is held jointly, the parties can share the value of the asset equally. If the title is held by only one person, only that person is legally entitled to the asset, with only limited exceptions.

What Jack and Jill Can Share

Jack and Jill will be able to share in the value of both vehicles, as well as the joint savings account. This is because these assets are held jointly. Both parties are automatically entitled to share in the value of those assets.

What Jack and Jill Can’t Share

Jack and Jill would each keep their own bank accounts. Unfortunately for Jack, the title to the house is in Jill’s name alone. While Jack and Jill have been living in the house together for the last 15 years, and both put time and money into renovating and decorating the house, Jack has no automatic entitlement to half the value of the house. Jack is also not entitled to exclusive possession of the home. If Jack and Jill were married, the treatment of the house would be very different.

Jack would be entitled to keep his RRSP. Jill would keep her pension; quite unfortunately for Jack, as he was hoping to share in Jill’s pension to fund his retirement. Now that Jack and Jill are no longer together, Jack is likely going to have to come up with an alternative retirement plan.

The Exception

While the law for dividing property on the break down of the relationship for common law couples follows the title of the asset, it may be possible to make a claim for an equitable share in an asset that is in the other person’s name. The best means of doing this is to claim a Constructive Trust[2]  based on equitable principles. Be forewarned that such a process is expensive and protracted. And the threshold for establishing a claim is high.

Conclusion

When asking the question: to get married or not, it is important to understand the legal implications of your decision. The best way to do this is to consult with a lawyer to better understand how the law will apply to you. A lawyer can advise you as to what you can do to protect yourself, and your assets, prior to entering into either a marriage, or a common law relationship with your partner. A lawyer can draft a domestic contract that can set out what will happen if the relationship breaks down and can address the equal sharing of assets, whether you marry or do not marry. This will help to save you from ending up as Jack did: a victim of the fact that common law spouses are not included in the division of property provisions of the Ontario Family Law Act.

- Mary Jane Binks Q.C. and Lauren M. Angle for abblaw.ca

[The above article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you live in the Ottawa area and would like advice about a legal issue please email us or call 613-569-9500 to speak with one of our lawyers or a member of our staff.]

--------------------------------

[1] There are exceptions when it comes to dividing property between married couples, such as gifts or inheritances received by one spouse during the marriage, among other things. For more information on what can and cannot be equalized on separation, consult with a lawyer.

[2] A constructive trust is an equitable remedy that the court will impose if they believe the person retaining the asset will be unjustly enriched, to the detriment of the other, by being able to keep the entire asset.

Understanding Separation & Divorce

The term “divorce” has a very distinct legal meaning, yet many people fail to understand the difference between separation and divorce. Often the meanings of the two concepts are blurred together.

To illustrate, a conversation around a water cooler somewhere in Ontario might go as follows:

     MAURICE:   Did you hear the news? Moe from marketing and
                         Sylvie from accounting are separating!

     MARTHA:    That’s funny, I heard they got a divorce.

     MAURICE:   What’s the difference, all I know is that
                          she’s getting the house and he’s getting  
                          a lawnmower.

     MARTHA:    I don’t know the difference either…
                         at least it was one of those new cordless
                         mowers…

To alleviate the confusion between the terms ‘separation’ and ‘divorce,’ it is helpful to begin with section 8 of the Divorce Act, which allows either or both spouses to apply to the Court for a divorce when there has been a “breakdown of the marriage.”

Parties must apply to the court if they want to be divorced. So, if Moe and Sylvie are separating but are not applying to court, then it would be appropriate to say they are “separated” but not “divorced.”

To obtain a divorce, the parties must first be “spouses” within the meaning of the Divorce Act. This definition excludes people merely living together and “common law” spouses and means that the two persons must be legally married to one another. The issue of whether two people are legally married is an entirely separate, and sometimes complex, issue that will be canvassed in a future blog.

The Divorce Act also states that to be granted a divorce order, there must be a “breakdown of the marriage.”

According to the Divorce Act, a “breakdown of the marriage” can only be established where:

1. the spouses have lived separate and apart for at least one year immediately preceding the determination of the divorce proceeding and were living separate and apart at the commencement of the proceeding;

or

2. the spouse against whom the divorce proceeding is brought has, since celebration of the marriage,

(i) committed adultery, or

(ii) treated the other spouse with physical or mental cruelty of such a kind as to render intolerable the continued cohabitation of the spouses.

It is not possible to be divorced unless the parties fit into one of the above three categories.

While separation is necessary to establish first ground of marital breakdown, it is not relevant to the less commonly used grounds of adultery or cruelty.

“Separation" under the Divorce Act doesn’t just mean physical separation. The Act states that “spouses shall be deemed to have lived separate and apart for any period during which they lived apart and either of them had the intention to live separate and apart from the other…”.

Therefore, in addition to living apart for one year, the Divorce Act adds the additional element that at least one of the parties must have had the intention to live separate and apart from the other.*

Of interest, subsection 8(3)(ii) of the Divorce Act allows spouses to resume living together with the intention of trying to resolve their marital differences without interrupting the 1 year period, so long as it doesn’t last longer than 90 days. This subsection is consistent with other sections of the Divorce Act designed to encourage the spouses to reconcile. For example, the Divorce Act places duties on legal advisors and the courts to advise and assist spouses in reconciliation where appropriate.

The distinction between separation and divorce can also be relevant to the division of family property. In fact, determining the date of separation is often crucial for dividing marital property under the Family Law Act.

“Separation” is given the following meaning by the Family Law Act:

     The date the spouses separate and there is no reasonable prospect

     that they will resume cohabitation.

This definition implies that equalization of family property can occur whether or not the spouses are divorced. Going back to the water cooler conversation, just because Moe and Sylvie seem to have sorted out their property issues doesn’t necessarily mean that they are divorced or that they will ever get divorced in the future. Perhaps the two had settled all of the issues stemming from their separation in a separation agreement and were content not to apply for a divorce.

It is helpful to remember that while the concept of separation is often relevant to obtaining a divorce and to the determination of the valuation date for the purposes of equalization, it is legally distinct from divorce.

Who knows when this distinction might come in handy around the water cooler!

*[While there is an entire body of case law examining what constitutes living separate and apart for the purpose of establishing marital breakdown, a review of such law is outside the ambit of this blog posting. For an extensive review of the factors courts in Ontario use to determine whether parties are living separate and apart, the decision of Greaves v. Greaves [2004] CanLII 25489 (ON SC) provides a helpful starting point.]

- Michael D. Heikkinen for abblaw.ca

[The above article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. If you live in the Ottawa area and would like advice about a legal issue please email us or call 613-569-9500 to speak with one of our lawyers or a member of our staff.]