Cook v. Cook

Cook v. Cook

The consent order could not compel London Drugs to transfer funds from the Employer Basic Account because the plan expressly prohibited withdrawals while the member remained employed; s.66 of the Family Relations Act does not authorize the court to override those contractual withdrawal restrictions or order a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 BCCA 232
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Trudy Charlene Cook; Respondent / Defendant: Warren Mark Cook
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Family Relations Act Property Division (rrsp Equalization) / Appeal to Court of Appeal for British Columbia (judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
RRSP Equalization, Spousal Rollover (income Tax Act S.116), Family Relations Act Ss.56 and 66, Vesting and Withdrawal Restrictions, Third‑party Pension Administrator Obligations
Source Language
english
Family Law Property Law Pension/benefits Law Contract Law Statutory Interpretation RRSP Equalization Spousal Rollover (income Tax Act S.116) Family Relations Act Ss.56 and 66 +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trudy Charlene Cook

Appellant / Plaintiff

Warren Mark Cook

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Relations Act Property Division (rrsp Equalization) / Appeal to Court of Appeal for British Columbia (judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether funds in an employer RRSP (Employer Basic Account) may be transferred to spouse pursuant to a consent order and s.116 Income Tax Act
  2. 2 Whether London Drugs as plan administrator was obliged to effect the spousal rollover despite plan restrictions on withdrawals while employed
  3. 3 Whether s.66 of the Family Relations Act permits the court to override contractual or plan terms and compel a third party to transfer funds

Ratio Decidendi

The consent order could not compel London Drugs to transfer funds from the Employer Basic Account because the plan expressly prohibited withdrawals while the member remained employed; s.66 of the Family Relations Act does not authorize the court to override those contractual withdrawal restrictions or order a third‑party administrator to effect transfers beyond the member's own rights, therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order compelling London Drugs to transfer funds from the Employer Basic Account to the appellant