Cotnam v. Rousseau, 2018 ONSC 216
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Judge | DE SA J. |
| Citation | 2018 ONSC 216 |
| Docket Number | CV-15-0071 |
| Court | Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada) |
| Date | 09 January 2018 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
5 practice notes
-
Earl v. McAllister,,
...The appellant argues that the application judge was in error not to rely on the more recent decision of this court in Cotnam v. Rousseau, 2018 ONSC 216, where it was held that absent more explicit language, the spousal priority provided for in s. 48 of the Pensions Benefit Act would not she......
-
Pensions Newsletter – July 2018
...v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2018 ONSC 630 BENEFICIARY DESIGNATIONS Rehel Estate v. Methot, 2017 ONSC 7529 Cotnam v. Rousseau, 2018 ONSC 216 DEDUCTABILITY OF PENSION PLAN CONTRIBUTIONS Smith v. The Queen, 2018 TCC 61 DISCRIMINATION UNDER HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFIT PLANS Canadian El......
-
Pensions Newsletter July 2018
...not automatically entitled to the funds held in Mr. Rehel's LIF Account. Ontario Superior Court of Justice Decision Cotnam v. Rousseau, 2018 ONSC 216 Shelly Cotnam (Applicant), a child of Barry Cotnam (Deceased), made a claim to the Deceased's estate for dependant support under the Successi......
-
Pensions, Benefits & Executive Compensation Newsletter ' April 2020
...of determining dependent support. The O.N. Superior Court reviewed the relevant case law in its analysis, including Cotnam v. Rousseau, 2018 ONSC 216 (Cotnam), which was discussed in our July 2018 Blakes: Pensions Newsletter. In Cotnam, the O.N. Superior Court determined that spousal priori......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 cases
-
Earl v. McAllister,,
...The appellant argues that the application judge was in error not to rely on the more recent decision of this court in Cotnam v. Rousseau, 2018 ONSC 216, where it was held that absent more explicit language, the spousal priority provided for in s. 48 of the Pensions Benefit Act would not she......
-
Cotnam v. Rousseau, 2018 ONSC 7539
...the Respondent ) HEARD: In Writing Endorsement DE SA J.: [1] The Applicant seeks a variation of my initial order in Cotnam v. Rousseau, 2018 ONSC 216 (CanLII). Paragraph 60 of my decision requires that one half of the preretirement death benefit be assigned to Shelly Ann Marie Cotnam (“Shel......
3 firm's commentaries
-
Pensions Newsletter – July 2018
...v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2018 ONSC 630 BENEFICIARY DESIGNATIONS Rehel Estate v. Methot, 2017 ONSC 7529 Cotnam v. Rousseau, 2018 ONSC 216 DEDUCTABILITY OF PENSION PLAN CONTRIBUTIONS Smith v. The Queen, 2018 TCC 61 DISCRIMINATION UNDER HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFIT PLANS Canadian El......
-
Pensions Newsletter July 2018
...not automatically entitled to the funds held in Mr. Rehel's LIF Account. Ontario Superior Court of Justice Decision Cotnam v. Rousseau, 2018 ONSC 216 Shelly Cotnam (Applicant), a child of Barry Cotnam (Deceased), made a claim to the Deceased's estate for dependant support under the Successi......
-
Pensions, Benefits & Executive Compensation Newsletter ' April 2020
...of determining dependent support. The O.N. Superior Court reviewed the relevant case law in its analysis, including Cotnam v. Rousseau, 2018 ONSC 216 (Cotnam), which was discussed in our July 2018 Blakes: Pensions Newsletter. In Cotnam, the O.N. Superior Court determined that spousal priori......