Share my pension? No way, we've been separated for years.
In the rush to first open that RRSP, you probably signed reams of documents. But, if your circumstances have changed at all, now might be a good time to review just what you signed -- particularly when it comes to your beneficiary.
It's pretty standard advice: If you're married or living in a common-law relationship, you're probably better off to name your spouse or partner as the beneficiary.
This way, your RRSP assets can be rolled over to his or her plan at your death, allowing you to avoid paying tax until the surviving spouse is faced with his or her own final tax return.
Reassess this in the event of divorce or remarriage, however. There have been cases where pension money went to a former spouse after the ex’s death, even though he'd embarked on another long-term relationship.
An Ontario man, although separated from his wife of 23 years, never signed a separation agreement and neglected to change beneficiaries. A few years later, he moved in with a new common-law partner who subsequently qualified as a wife for the purpose of determining survivor benefits.
Even though the couple was clearly together at the time of his death, the courts awarded the pension assets to the estanged wife since they were still in her name.
Divorced? Did you bother reviewing those beneficaiary designations? How did things work out?
“The pension-earning spouse has to ensure, if possible, that he or she changes the survivor-benefits designation if another spouse has come into the picture,” Toronto lawyer Stephen Grant told the Globe and Mail.
By Gordon Powers/MSN Money
Posted by: Karl | Dec 11, 2021 5:35:38 AM
I think the first wife who took the pension benefits from the 2nd wife 23 years after separation should be ashamed of herself. It's a symptom of the greed and laziness that is taking over our society. I realize women prefer to be supported by men but this is a little ridiculous. How can any person with dignity accept money from and ex 23 years later?
Posted by: Dave | Dec 13, 2021 4:54:49 AM
The poor courts, having to chose between making one woman an victim or making another woman a victim. It's so much easier for the courts when there's a man involved. Then they know just by the gender alone who to kick.
I've not been divorced but have witnessed many. And it doesn't matter who you designate as a beneficiary, it's the lawyers, judges and courts who receive most of the money.
Posted by: barry | Dec 15, 2021 8:48:32 AM
Anything to do with money, lawyers will make sure their cut is the biggest and deepest and judges are just promoted lawyers .Whats fair, decent and right are just words to these people and is reflected in the state of this country, what you work hard for will be squandered .
Posted by: Dee | Dec 15, 2021 9:02:05 AM
Perhaps the right person did receive the pension funds.
I would be one who has received pension $ . After 34 years and a non contribution from spouse since separating, I feel in his passing that I am now getting the support on his behalf for my/our
children. It goes to paying off their student debt.
In other situations, maybe not appropriate. Do not be so quick to judge the recepiant.
Posted by: Bob | Dec 15, 2021 1:26:33 PM
Yes of course she should get from him at least the accrued growth!
It was their savings at the time so she should get at least half the value.
It costs a lot to retire theses days you know!
Posted by: LBB | Dec 15, 2021 7:11:37 PM
Well the article did not tell you everything. The fact is that the ex may have got the RRSP's but the new wife may have had to pay the taxes on them if she was the residuary beneficiary under the deceased's will. The estate not the RRSP recipient is responsible for paying the taxes. This may have not been what the deceased intended but it is not uncommon for the deceased to intend that the 1st wife and often the mother of his children to benefit. A similar problem can arise when a will leaves the RRSP's to one child and the balance of the estate to another child. The RRSP recipient receives the cash the other beneficiary pays the taxes.
An Ontario Lawyer
Posted by: Marion | Dec 15, 2021 8:39:26 PM
I think the article says he was married 23 years, not separated 23 years. She would probably be entitled to most of those assets if they had arranged a proper separation agreement.
Posted by: Dennis | Dec 17, 2021 12:46:35 PM
RRSP's are a good way to avoid taxes, Until you need them. Government is already taxing us for everyday things and then after you put your net money in a RRSP, go and try and take it out. Surprise you have more taxes to pay. Cash Cow for them. Who knows what the tax rate ewill be when you try and take out the money when it is time for you to retire, no doubt half. People who paid intto CCP all there life should get what they deserve. Our veterans our getting less the the people we bring into the country and how do you pay taxes on something you never paid for in the first place. Want to stimulate the economy, drop taxes and people will spend more money on local stored and things they would like to have from working all there lives. Government makes something so simple look so hard. Over analyzing is the way they work now. GO BACK TO THE BASICS as this wokred before. Too many greedy people wanting to have it all and let the middle and lower income families suffer because they dont want to and because money is always a factor, this is what you get. Get with it government of Canada. Make change for the better,...not for your personal agenda........