Canada Case Law

Capadouca v. Jarvis

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found on the whole of the evidence that the parties separated well before April 2023 and that s.198(2)(b) therefore barred the claimant's Part 5 and Part 7 FLA claims; the term 'order' in s.198(2)(b) includes declaratory relief where the declaration is sought as or will be used as an enforceable remedy, so seeking declarations under Part 5 after the two-year period is barred; the claimant's unjust enrichment claim failed for lack of necessary evidence of deprivation or absence of juristic reason; accordingly the respondent's summary trial application was granted and the claimant's a…

Source excerpt

• Marriage-like relationship
• Separation
• Limitation period s.198(2)(b) fla
• Declaratory relief vs orders
• Unjust enrichment
• Summary trial suitability

Read case analysis

Castelli v. Paton

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed a family property division appeal, holding the claim was filed too late under the Family Law Act limitation period.

• Common-law spouse
• Separation
• Limitation period (s.198(2)(b))
• Reconciliation tolling (s.83(1))
• Credibility and deference to trial judge
• Family-law

Read case analysis

WH v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Appellant was not cohabiting in a conjugal relationship with the contributor in the year immediately before his death, therefore she did not satisfy the CPP requirement to be the contributor's survivor and is not entitled to the survivor's pension.

Source excerpt

• Survivor pension eligibility
• Common-law partner
• Cohabitation
• Separation

Read case analysis

Lister v. Bal

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the parties were never spouses under the Family Law Act because their marriage-like relationship did not continue for two uninterrupted years.

• Spousal status
• Marriage-like relationship
• Cohabitation
• Separation
• Reconciliation (s.83 fla)
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

AC v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The appellant failed to prove he was not separated from the added party during the relevant period; documentary evidence (statutory declarations, tax and CRA records, notarized reconciliations, and representations to Service Canada) more likely establishes separation from December 2017 with reconciliation in August 2021, making the appellant ineligible for the allowance from April 2018 to August 2021 and liable to repay the overpayment; proceeding in the appellant's absence and rejecting late, unverified medical evidence was justified and did not render the hearing unfair.

Source excerpt

• Allowance eligibility
• Separation
• Overpayment recovery
• Reconsideration
• Burden of proof
• Equitable jurisdiction

Read case analysis

CL v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The OAS Act treats spouses as separated where they are no longer cohabiting in a conjugal relationship; applying the multi‑factor test and considering the appellant's initiation and pursuit of divorce and consistent statements, the evidence establishes separation on October 24, 2021, so GIS must be calculated at the single rate as of February 2022 and the Minister's overpayment recovery stands; the Tribunal cannot alter Ministerial debt remedies.

Source excerpt

• Old age security
• Guaranteed income supplement
• Marital status
• Separation
• Overpayment recovery
• Divorce

Read case analysis

Lussier v. Ritchie

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the parties’ relationship was continuous from March 2004 to May 23, 2020, ordered pension and CPP division, set child support, and awarded spousal support.

• Separation and reconciliation
• Division of employment pension
• Cpp equalization
• Deductibility of mandatory pension contributions
• Imputation of income
• Spousal support quantum and duration

Read case analysis

WV v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Tribunal found that P. G. was not the deceased's common‑law partner for the required continuous 12‑month period prior to death because the relationship lacked sufficient elements of conjugal cohabitation and public/legal representation across the deceased's whole life (minimal financial interdependence, inconsistent residence and official forms, lack of monogamy and lack of representation as common‑law on taxes/forms), while the marriage to W. V. was intact at death; therefore in the absence of a common‑law partner the survivor pension is payable to the legally married spouse, W. V.

Source excerpt

• Survivor's pension
• Common-law relationship
• Cohabitation
• Separation
• Benefit entitlement

Read case analysis

FG v Minister of Employment and Social Development and VG

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The tribunal found on the balance of the hearing evidence that the parties continued a conjugal cohabiting relationship until July 2018 — evidenced by continued cohabitation, joint finances, private and public behaviour, mutual household assistance and community recognition — therefore the appellant was not 'separated' for OAS/ALW purposes until July 2018 and remained eligible for ALW through November 2018, negating the alleged overpayment.

Source excerpt

• Allowance (alw)
• Marital status
• Separation
• Overpayment

Read case analysis

SS v Minister of Employment and Social Development and PS

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Despite physical separation, the appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he and the added party ceased cohabiting in a conjugal relationship from September 1, 2015, because ongoing financial arrangements, property ties, public presentation as married, lack of steps to divide assets, late statutory declarations and conduct weighed in favour of continued conjugal cohabitation; therefore GIS calculation at the married rate was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Guaranteed income supplement eligibility
• Marital status
• Separation
• Old age security act interpretation

Read case analysis