Skip to main content

Leaving home physically doesn't mean you have left your spouse financially.

In a ruling that took a deceased man's pension away from his common-law spouse, the Ontario Court of Appeal awarded it instead to his long-ago, estranged wife.

The decision serves as an important warning that departing spouses must change their beneficiaries or they will remain frozen in time, legal experts said this week.

Story continues below advertisement

"The pension-earning spouse has to ensure, if possible, that he or she changes the survivor-benefits designation if another spouse has come into the picture," said Stephen Grant, a Toronto family lawyer.

Phil Epstein, another family lawyer, said that spouses who obtain a legal divorce are especially prone to believing they no longer owe any legal obligation to a spouse who is listed as a beneficiary in their will, retirement savings plan or pension.

"Many people make this mistake and end up disappointing their common-law spouses to the benefit of previous wives they hate," Mr. Epstein said.

A Windsor, Ont., man at the centre of the case, Ronald Leo Carrigan, died unexpectedly on June 4, 2008, at the age of 57.

Mr. Carrigan had separated from his wife of 23 years, Melodee Carrigan, in 1996. The couple never signed a separation agreement, and Mrs. Carrigan and their two daughters remained designated as Mr. Carrigan's pension beneficiaries.

In 2000, Mr. Carrigan moved into a condo with his new partner, Jennifer Quinn, and resided with her until his death.

According to law, the couple became common-law partners after their third year of cohabitation.

Story continues below advertisement

As a result, both Mrs. Carrigan and Ms. Quinn qualified as "wives" under pension legislation for the purpose of determining survivor benefits.

Faced with the conundrum last year, an Ontario Superior Court trial judge awarded Mr. Carrigan's preretirement death benefits to Ms. Quinn. The judge said the pivotal fact in the case was that Ms. Quinn was living with Mr. Carrigan at the time of his death.

However, in a rare 2-1 split, the Court of Appeal has reversed that decision in favour of Mrs. Carrigan.

"The sad fact is that, this came down to an all-or-nothing contest between two people who both cared dearly for Ron," a lawyer for Mrs. Carrigan, Rod Godard, said Thursday.

The case required the Court of Appeal to carefully parse the wording of the Pension Benefits Act (PBA).

One of the majority judges, Mr. Justice Russell Juriansz, said that contextual nuances in the pension statute provided valuable clues that it favoured Mr. Carrigan's ex-spouse.

Story continues below advertisement

"Moreover, I see no particular policy rationale for interpreting the Pension Benefits Act to provide unequivocally that in all circumstances where there is a legally married spouse and a common law spouse, the common law spouse is entitled to the member's death benefit," Judge Juriansz said.

However, in dissenting reasons, Mr. Justice Harry LaForme argued that the act does not preclude a person from effectively having two wives with equal rights of survivorship.

"The definition does not give married spouse priority over common law spouses," Judge LaForne asserted.

"Also, since I imagine that situations like the one in this case are not uncommon, I would expect that the draftors of the PBA turned their minds to its possibility and drafted accordingly."

Judge LaForme said that the act clearly favours whichever spouse – whether married or living common-law – is living with the pension-holder on the date of his death.

The third appellate judge, Madam Justice Gloria Epstein, wrote separate reasons that agreed Mrs. Carrigan ought to receive the pension benefits.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter