Court dismisses applicant’s request to vary Pension Division Order
July 23, 2026
.png)
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia has refused to vary a Pension Division Order based on a settlement agreement where the husband subsequently purchased additional pensionable service that became subject to the Pension Division Order.
The applicant and the respondent separated in October 2016 and came to an agreement with respect to pension division (the “Agreement”) at a settlement conference in November 2017. A Divorce Order and Corollary Relief Order were later issued in January 2018. Pursuant to the Pension Division Order, Logan’s Canadian Forces (“CF”) and Halifax Regional Police (“HRP”) pensions were to be divided, with 50% of the value “from the date of inception to the date of separation” together with “any accrued interest or value in such benefits since that time, to the date of the payment”.
The applicant had accrued about three and a half months of pensionable service in the HRP plan at the time of the Agreement. He later used money he had received from the CF plan alongside other funds to buyback service in the HRP plan. In 2020, the applicant was advised by the HRP plan administrator that according to the Pension Division Order, the respondent would receive half of the three and a half months of pensionable service and half of the purchased service of $164,909.43.
In 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Variation Application with respect to the division of his pensions and argued that the division of his HRP pension should not include the additional pensionable service purchased because the “clear or obvious intention of the Pension Division Order was to provide [the respondent] with half of [the applicant’s] pension accumulated over 113 days”.
The Court disagreed and held that the pension was not “in pay” at the time of the Pension Division Order. Further, the Court noted that “the value would obviously grow over the period of his employment while he continued to make contributions. He chose to re-invest other pension funds into his new HRP pension.” The Pension Division Order not based on the Court’s decision, but rather on the parties’ Agreement at the settlement conference – and there was no error expressing the manifest intention of the Court. Accordingly, the Court declined to vary the order.
Click on ‘More information’ below to read the case:
.png)
.png)
