Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: Phinney v. Phinney, 2005 NSSC130

 

Date: 20050530

Docket: 1204-003429

Registry: Kentville

 

 

Between:

Charles Ronald Phinney

Petitioner

v.

 

Lesley Carolyn Phinney

Respondent

 

 

LIBRARY HEADING

 

 

 

Judge:                            The Honourable Justice Gregory M. Warner

 

Heard:                            At Kentville, N.S., on March 29, 30 and Apr 21, 2005

 

Final Written

Submissions:                   May 18, 2005

 

Subject:                          Divorce                

 

Issue:                    Access, spousal support, division of matrimonial home and division of employment pension.     

 

Summary:                                           The parties were married in 1990 and separated in September, 2002.  A custody report was prepared but during the trial the father conceded custody to the mother subject to an order for joint custody with generous access in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Custody Report.  The father's income of $55,000.00 would result in child support in accordance with the Federal Child Support Guidelines.


 

Result:                            A review of s. 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act resulted in a minimal entitlement by Ms. Phinney to spousal support.  Since separation her employment income had grown and she had entered into a new common law relationship with a partner with very good economic circumstances.  Her minimal entitlement to spousal support was consumed by September, 2004.  No future spousal support was ordered. 

 

The equity of the matrimonial home (approximately $16,000.00) was divided equally and the home awarded to Ms. Phinney.  Mr. Phinney's share of the equity was reduced by arrears of spousal and child support and the balance was adjusted in the division of Mr. Phinney's employment pension.

 

In accordance with Morash v. Morash, Mr. Phinney's employment pension was divided equally subject to an adjustment for his equity in the matrimonial home, which adjustment was made without the benefit of an actuarial report, resulting in an actual division of Mr. Phinney's employment pension that was the equivalent of an equal division of the benefits earned during the marriage.

 

 

 

THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION.  QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.