Katharine Shadbolt

Following a successful appeal by the respondent regarding the normal retirement age used to value the applicant's pension, the matter was remitted to the Superior Court to recalculate the equalization payment.

The court adopted the applicant's expert valuation of the pension at age 60, finding the experts' preliminary values were less than $1,000 apart.

The court strongly criticized the respondent for unnecessarily prolonging the litigation and failing to comply with previous court orders.

The respondent was ordered to pay the outstanding equalization payment and costs, failing which the amounts would be transferred directly from his investment accounts or pension.

Following a family law trial regarding the equalization of net family properties, the applicant sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the costs sought were excessive and that certain pre-trial steps should not be included.

The court reviewed the parties' offers to settle and found the applicant beat her November 2018 offer.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs for the period prior to the offer and full indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs award at $32,732.72.

The parties resolved all issues except the equalization of their net family properties, specifically the valuation of their respective federal public service pensions.

The court determined that the applicant's pension value must include all pensionable service for which she elected to repay contributions for leaves without pay.

The court also found that the applicant's survivor benefit should not be included in her net family property as it would be lost upon divorce.

For the respondent's pension, the court used age 60 as the reasonable retirement age based on his pre-separation intentions and declined to deduct a contingent survivor benefit.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $563,560.23 with pre-judgment interest.