Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #11  
Old 08-24-2011, 08:47 AM
littleman's Avatar
littleman littleman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: OTTAWA
Posts: 552
littleman is on a distinguished road
Default

she is entitled to half no matter. but if you have equal plans then no worries. she is entitled to half and you are entitled to half so there is no division required. If your company has made the contribution and you have not and neither has she then there is NO equalization. That is a benefit you recevied from your years of service with that company. Without you working there you wouldnt have that.
  #12  
Old 08-24-2011, 09:28 AM
Rioe's Avatar
Rioe Rioe is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,347
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littleman View Post
she is entitled to half no matter. but if you have equal plans then no worries. she is entitled to half and you are entitled to half so there is no division required. If your company has made the contribution and you have not and neither has she then there is NO equalization. That is a benefit you recevied from your years of service with that company. Without you working there you wouldnt have that.
I don't believe that's true. The reasoning is that she contributed indirectly to your ability to work (by making meals for you, by doing more housekeeping, by doing a greater portion of child care, etc) and had full expectations of benefiting from your pension when you retired. There is always equalization of pension (unless you give up other assets instead, or somehow convince your ex not to go for it).

It sucked in my situation, because I did the bulk of the housekeeping, cooking and child care, on top of working the full time job as the greater breadwinner. So unlike the stereotypical case the law is based on, my ex did not really "support" my employment, but was still entitled to half my pension nonetheless. And as though that wasn't hard to swallow, because I had the greater income, I was making spousal RRSP contributions, so now I have a much reduced RRSP amount but don't get back any contribution room.

Edited to add:

This is definitely the case for marriage dissolution. I now realize you were speaking of common-law, so now I'm not so sure.

Last edited by Rioe; 08-24-2011 at 09:30 AM. Reason: not paying attention
  #13  
Old 08-24-2011, 10:07 AM
cdstein cdstein is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6
cdstein is on a distinguished road
Default

Wow! Thanks for all the advise and insight everyone. I've decided to speak with a lawyer and my hope is to clear up some of the murkiness. She bought a house last night and we now have a time crunch to finalize the SA such that she can get financing.

I confirmed that my company pension is covered under the FLA...but I want to get the exact wording as to the difinition of a spouse.

Please continue to offer advice...and I will keep you posted.
  #14  
Old 08-31-2011, 12:58 AM
lorlaman lorlaman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: East York
Posts: 130
lorlaman is on a distinguished road
Default

Under the FLA meaning of spouse, she is not entitled.
  #15  
Old 09-02-2011, 12:44 PM
littleman's Avatar
littleman littleman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: OTTAWA
Posts: 552
littleman is on a distinguished road
Default

she is as entitled as a married woman, however I still maintain that if you didnt work at that particular company this question would be mute. But I have to disagree to her entitlement because she cooked and what not. She could have got a freaking job but CHOSE to stay home (I know Im going to hear it now). I whole heartedly think that if you have two children and one parents CHOOSES to stay home to raise them then that is your choice. If the marriage breaks up then why should the other parent pay for the years the other one CHOSE to stay home. Is the working parent getting compensation for the time they spent in traffic and away from their children while making a living? It just maddens me that people think they are ENTITLED andthe working parent is not.
  #16  
Old 09-02-2011, 01:03 PM
cashcow4ex's Avatar
cashcow4ex cashcow4ex is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 308
cashcow4ex is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by littleman View Post
she is as entitled as a married woman, however I still maintain that if you didnt work at that particular company this question would be mute. But I have to disagree to her entitlement because she cooked and what not. She could have got a freaking job but CHOSE to stay home (I know Im going to hear it now). I whole heartedly think that if you have two children and one parents CHOOSES to stay home to raise them then that is your choice. If the marriage breaks up then why should the other parent pay for the years the other one CHOSE to stay home. Is the working parent getting compensation for the time they spent in traffic and away from their children while making a living? It just maddens me that people think they are ENTITLED andthe working parent is not.
AMEN Your preaching to the choir here.

Although I will add that what I think is fair is support as a temporary means until the other parent gets re-educated or back into the work place. The courts have it so the paying parent is a life long crutch for the non paying parent.

My Ex can brag all she wants that she has a new home and car...however its my money from my RRSP's, deferred profit sharing, spousal support, and child support thats purchased it and maintaining it.
  #17  
Old 09-02-2011, 02:08 PM
pokeman pokeman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: calgary
Posts: 190
pokeman has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

in Alberta they adjusted my CPP
credits in her favor since I had no
pension

I had never heard of this prior told
its common here, so here under common
law I can see entitlement
  #18  
Old 09-04-2011, 11:50 AM
cdstein cdstein is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6
cdstein is on a distinguished road
Default

My laywer said she is not entitled (as it was a common law relationship). We finalized the SA, signed and witnessed, and she took it to her lawyer for review. Her lawyer didn't bring up the pension and RRSPs, so its a done deal as far as I'm concerned.

The agreement is 12 years of SS payments, maximum amount for the first year (or until she gets a job), then the mid-point for the remainder of the term. Also child support, but thats a given. There is a clause to recalculate when situations and cirsumstances (i.e.: employment) change.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
new here...pls be gentle! :) caro46 Introductions 9 08-11-2011 02:49 PM
A different pension lump sum question OtRA Financial Issues 5 03-30-2011 04:07 PM
Question about Common Law Marriages Scody Divorce & Family Law 2 04-16-2009 07:10 AM
Pension (OMERS) + division + common law Happy Common Law Issues 3 01-21-2008 09:51 PM
Question on Common Law Divorce Steve West Divorce & Family Law 1 01-10-2008 12:20 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:39 AM.