Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Leave to appeal was refused because the Claimant failed to raise an arguable case that the General Division erred and failed to present any new evidence not before the General Division; the General Division correctly applied the mandatory credit split provisions of the CPP and its regulations and found no applicable exception.
Source excerpt
The court used a summary trial to divide family property and debt, drawing adverse inferences from the claimant’s non-disclosure and ordering sales and payments.
Applying the Betts factors to the evidence (shared residence, shared bed, financial interdependence, shared parenting, shared assets and mutual acceptance of the arrangement), the Tribunal found the parties cohabited in a conjugal relationship from April 22, 1995 to December 27, 1998; because CPP credit splits apply only to full calendar years, additional credit splitting is ordered for 1995, 1996 and 1997 only.
Source excerpt
The court enforced earlier parenting and counselling orders, kept child support at $1,457 monthly pending tax disclosure, released a $20,000 holdback, and quantified s. 7 expenses.
The General Division made no error under the DESD Act because the CPP mandates the credit split and neither law nor evidence established authority to reverse it; there was no denial of natural justice or perverse factual finding, so the Appeal Division must dismiss the appeal.
Source excerpt
The separation agreement does not expressly mention the Canada Pension Plan nor does it expressly state an intention that CPP credits not be divided; therefore it does not meet the specific requirement of s.55.2(3)(a) of the CPP and is not binding on the Minister, so the Minister's decision denying the objection is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the DUPE application was filed well after the 36-month limitation in s.55(1) CPP, no written waiver by the former spouse existed, the Appellant's incapacity began after the limitation period and did not deprive her of capacity during the relevant period, and the Tribunal lacks authority to waive statutory time limits.
Source excerpt
Matrimonial trial on property division, spousal support, restraining order, and divorce. Court equalized assets with adjustments, denied further retroactive support, and ordered ongoing support.
Explore more
