Garnier v Garnier, 2023 NSSC 115

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: Garnier v Garnier , 2023 NSSC 115 Date: 20230404 Docket: SFH No 1201-071154 Registry: Halifax Between: Jennifer Garnier Petitioner v Jason Garnier Respondent Judge: The Honourable Justice Theresa M Forgeron Heard: November 4 and December 13, 2022, in Halifax, Nova Scotia D ecision : April 4, 2023 Counsel: Jennifer Garnier, Self-Represented Kelsey Hudson, for the Respondent, Jason Garnier By the Court: Introduction [ 1 ] At this review hearing, Jennifer Garnier seeks continued support from her former husband, Jason Garnier.

She asks that the current monthly payment of $1,221 be maintained until she turns 55 and can access her share of Mr. Garnier’s pension. She states that her request is appropriate given the compensatory and non-compensatory nature of her claim. [ 2 ] For his part, Mr. Garnier disputes entitlement and quantum. He states that during the marriage, Ms. Garnier was employed and also upgraded her education. Their lengthy marriage was not a traditional one. He also notes that Ms. Garnier is now permanently employed with benefits, including a pension. [ 3 ] In the alternative, Mr.

Garnier states that any support that is payable should be at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines because Ms. Garnier’s budget neither accurately reflects all available income nor appropriate expenses. Mr. Garnier submits that Ms. Garnier has two unreported sources of income. First, he states that Ms. Garnier can access her share of his pension before age 55 if she files a hardship application to the superintendent of pensions under the governing legislation . Second, he says that Ms. Garnier earns unreported income from selling crafts, recycled household furniture, and other articles. Mr.

Garnier submits that if income is imputed based on these sources, Ms. Garnier’s budgeted deficit will be diminished. [ 4 ] In addition, Mr. Garnier argues that Ms. Garnier’s expenses are excessive and not supported by the evidence. Further, he states that in her budget, Ms. Garnier includes expenses for her romantic partner. Issues [ 5 ] In this decision, I will decide the following issues: • Did Ms. Garnier prove entitlement? • Did Mr. Garnier prove that income should be imputed to Ms.

Garnier? • What is the appropriate spousal support order? [ 6 ] Before examining these issues, I will provide background information to provide context. Background Information [ 7 ] After cohabiting, the parties were married on October 16, 1993. Two sons were born – one in March 1996 and the other in January 1999. In addition, Ms. Garnier’s daughter from a prior relationship was also part of the family. [ 8 ] Following the marriage, Ms. Garnier stayed at home to care for the children, family, and home.

In the latter years, she began to work, mostly on a part-time basis, with the Halifax Regional Center for Education. Also, over a period of 12 years, Ms. Garnier took

occasional courses at NSCC. Her career and education were interrupted because of the needs of the family. [ 9 ] When the parties’ relationship began, Mr. Garnier was employed with the Canadian Armed Forces. He continued this employment until he was discharged for medical reasons. He retired before the parties separated. Upon retirement, Mr. Garnier attended NSCC. After graduation, he began full-time employment with the Commissionaires. [ 10 ] The parties separated in June 2017. By that time, both sons were enrolled in university.

It was anticipated that the oldest son would graduate with his first degree in May 2019, while the youngest son was expected to graduate in May 2021. [ 11 ] For her part, Ms. Garnier continued to take courses at NSCC, finally graduating in 2018 with a degree in library and information technology. In August 2018, Ms. Garnier secured permanent, full-time employment with the Halifax Regional Center for Education. [ 12 ] In June 2018, Ms. Garnier initiated divorce proceedings. In November 2018, after concluding a settlement conference before Justice Jollimore, a settlement was read into the record. Counsel for Mr.

Garnier drafted the divorce, corollary relief, and pension division orders which issued on January 30, 2019. [ 13 ] Unfortunately, the consent orders did not resolve the issues. On June 12, 2019, Ms. Garnier, self-represented, applied to vary and enforce the provisions of the CRO. On February 28, 2020, Mr. Garnier filed a response. The most significant, unresolved issue surrounded the

interpretation of the pension and spousal support provisions of the CRO. [ 14 ] After hearing the contested matters, I rendered my written decision which is reported as Garnier v Garnier, 2021 NSSC 116 . In my decision, at para 44, I found that during the 2018 negotiations, Mr. Garnier did not disclose his non-taxable Veterans Affairs pension in the monthly amount of about $1,050. [ 15 ] Further, in my 2021 decision, I granted the following relief at para 73: • Confirmation that the CRO orders Mr. Garnier to pay Ms. Garnier monthly spousal support as a bridging payment until Ms.

Garnier begins to receive monthly payments from her share of the pension. The quantum of spousal support will be determined at a hearing to be scheduled after Mr. Garnier’s pension is divided and further disclosure is filed and exchanged. • A retroactive variation of child support such that Mr. Garnier will pay a lump sum of $500 directly to Andrew; a lump sum of $400 to Ms. Garnier; and the table amount of child support to Ms. Garnier commencing March 1, 2020 and continuing monthly thereafter while Andrew lives with Ms. Garnier and is enrolled in a post-secondary educational program. • An order requiring Mr.

Garnier to pay $789 to Ms. Garnier for health expenses and confirmation that the uninsured cost of the glasses will be equally shared provided the glasses were not acquired as a gift. • Confirmation that Mr. Garnier must designate the child(ren) as beneficiary of his life insurance as security for his child support obligation. [ 16 ] In January 2022, Mr. Garnier’s pension was divided for the period of the marriage. The pension administrator valued Ms. Garnier’s share and transferred those funds to her through a locked-in vehicle. Ms.

Garnier tendered a LIRA statement, for the period from April to June 2022, which represented the account into which her share of Mr. Garnier’s pension was deposited. This statement shows that the amount invested was $344,985.37, with a market value of $292,983.02. [ 17 ] It was anticipated that Mr. Garnier’s income would reduce after his pension was divided. This assumption was incorrect. Mr. Garnier’s pension income will not be reduced until he turns 60. No evidence was tendered to show what the amount of his retirement income will be when Mr. Garnier turns 60. For now, it appears that Mr.

Garnier’s income is being treated as a retirement disability payment because he was medically discharged from the military. As a result, Mr. Garnier’s present financial position has not changed despite the pension division. This turn of events was neither known nor anticipated. [ 18 ] Other changes since the 2021 decision impact the parties’ dependent child. Andrew is presently completing graduate studies at McGill University. He will graduate in August 2024. Andrew receives a $29,708 stipend from McGill. In addition, both parties pay support directly to Andrew. Ms.

Garnier pays Andrew $200 per month, together with his cell phone and the uninsured portion of his health expenses. Mr. Garnier pays Andrew $582 per month and includes him on his health insurance. [ 19 ] The matter comes before me by way of a review hearing; no variation application was filed. In my 2021 decision, I ordered a review of spousal support once the parties’ incomes, expenses, and circumstances were solidified following the division of Mr. Garnier’s pension. Analysis [ 20 ] Did Ms. Garnier prove entitlement? Position of the Parties [ 21 ] Ms. Garnier states that she is entitled to spousal support.

She points to compensatory factors such as the fact that she remained out of the work force when the children were young; that when she returned to the work force, it was mainly on a part-time basis; and the fact that priority was assigned to Mr. Garnier’s career and needs. She also points to non-compensatory factors such as the current income disparity between the parties. [ 22 ] In contrast, in his pre-trial brief, Mr. Garnier challenged Ms. Garnier’s current entitlement to spousal support by asking me to consider the following:

• Although the parties had a lengthy marriage, both nevertheless worked and pursued their careers. Initially, Ms. Garnierconcentrated on the sale of crafts during the early years of the marriage, but later assumed more permanent employment in keeping withher skills and education. In 2006, Ms. Garnier began working at the Halifax Regional Center for Education where she continues to beemployed. • Ms. Garnier had ample time to pursue her education before and during the marriage. She entered the marriage with a medicalsecretarial diploma.

In 2006, she began to pursue the library and information technology program at NSCC which tuition was paid byMr. Garnier. While she was attending NSCC, Mr. Garnier assumed more childcare and domestic responsibilities than he had in the past. • Both parties performed household chores and looked after the children. Ms. Garnier exaggerated the number of Mr. Garnier’sdeployments. Mr. Garnier was infrequently deployed. For the most part, Mr. Garnier was home and willingly assisted with householdchores and childcare. • Ms. Garnier can generate more income by seeking an early withdrawal of money from her LIRA.

If she did, Ms. Garnier would beeligible to receive either $4,754.64 or $7,089.15 from the locked-in pension funds. Ms. Garnier may access the locked-in funds, under either the Pension Benefits Act, SNS 2011 or the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, RSC 1985, c. 32 (2nd Supp) by simply filing ahardship application to the superintendent. • Double recovery should be avoided as noted in Boston v Boston, 2001 SCC 43. Mr.

Garnier states that Boston stands for theproposition that “when a payor spouse makes payments from their pension, which has already been divided as a family asset, this willresult in a double recovery”: page 10 of Mr. Garnier’s pretrial brief. Because Mr. Garnier’s pension was divided, any spousal supportpayment would result in a double recovery to Ms. Garnier. • Ms. Garnier has a limited need for spousal support once her budget is adjusted for both income and expenses. Decision [23]

Section 15 of the Divorce Act provides me with the jurisdiction to award spousal support. Ms. Garnier bears the burden ofproof.

In Bracklow v Bracklow, (SCC), [1999] 1 SCR 420, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that entitlement isgrounded in one, or more, of the following three principles: • Compensatory support to address economic advantages and disadvantages flowing from the marriage, or the roles adopted duringthe marriage. • Non-compensatory support to address the disparity between the needs and means of the parties and arising from the marriagebreakdown. • Contractual support, either express or implied. [24] The factors I must consider are stated in s. 15.2(4) of the Divorce Act: 15.2(4) In making an order under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2), the court shall take into consideration thecondition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse, including: (

a) the length of time the spouses cohabited; (

b) the functions performed by each spouse during cohabitation; and (

c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of either spouse. [25] The objectives to be considered are set out in s. 15.2(6) of the Divorce Act: 15.2(6) An order made under subsection (1) or an interim order under subsection (2) that provides for the support of a spouse should (

a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown; (

b) apportion between the spouses any financial consequences arising from the care of any child of the marriage over and above anyobligation for the support of any child of the marriage; (

c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and (

d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time. [26] In addition, as part of my 2021 decision, I made the following factual findings that are relevant to my decision on entitlement: [28] The following represents my factual findings on the contextual circumstances at the time the consent CRO was resolved: • The parties were married for about 24 years and have two children. A long-term marriage is often viewed as a joint endeavourproducing a greater “presumptive claim to equal standards of living upon its dissolution”: Moge v. Moge, (SCC), [1992]3 SCR 813, per L'Heureux-Dubé, referencing Rogerson, "Judicial

Interpretation of the Spousal and Child Support Provisions ofthe Divorce Act, 1985 (Part I)". • After 24 years of marriage, Ms. Garnier held a reasonable expectation that she would maintain a standard of living roughly equal tothat of Mr. Garnier. This would be accomplished by Ms. Garnier receiving $1,221 in additional monthly income, an amount whichrepresented about one-half of the known monthly pension income received by Mr. Garnier.

• At the time of the settlement conference, Ms. Garnier understood that she would receive monthly pension payments once Mr.Garnier’s pension was divided. Ms. Garnier prepared her budget accordingly. She bought the matrimonial home and a vehicle based onthe additional income that she would receive either from spousal support or monthly pension payments once the pension was divided. • Ms. Garnier recently learned that she could not draw from her share of the pension, but rather, was required to deposit the lump sumpayment into a locked-in retirement account until age 55.[4] • If in 2018, Mr. Garnier knew that Ms.

Garnier was not eligible to receive her share of the pension until age 55, then Mr. Garnierinappropriately withheld material facts about his pension during the negotiation process. [27] I find that Ms. Garnier proved entitlement on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds for four reasons. First, the roleassumed by Ms. Garnier resulted in significant economic disadvantage. After the marriage, Ms. Garnier quit her job so she could care forthe children and the home. About 11 years later, Ms. Garnier began to work, mostly on a part-time basis, so she could continue to focuson the needs of the family. Ms.

Garnier assumed a traditional role within the family unit. The family’s decision for Ms. Garnier to remainout of the work force, and then to return generally on a part-time basis resulted in tangible economic loss as reviewed by the SupremeCourt of Canada in Moge v Moge, supra, at page 55: Richard Kerr's Economic Model to Assist in the Determination of Spousal Support (1992) came to a similar conclusion.

He posits that "[f]or women whose labour force interruptions have lasted for 10 years or longer, the cumulative present value of post re-entry earningslosses will typically exceed $80,000", over and above any loss incurred during the interruption itself. The figure is relative to womenwho have not interrupted their careers in such a fashion. He adds that "[e]ven labour force interruptions lasting as little as two years canhave significant long-term costs in terms of lost earnings ($30,000 or more)" (p. 1). Labour force interruptions are common and thisaccentuates the need for compensation.

One Statistics Canada report, Family History Survey: Preliminary Findings (1985), notes that 64percent of Canadian women report suffering work interruptions because of parenting or domestic responsibilities. The figure for menwas less than 1 percent (p. 26) The studies, while remaining untested, do illustrate the problems faced by women who reenter the labourforce after a period during which they stay at home to care for the family. [28] Second, the role assumed by Mr. Garnier afforded him with significant economic advantages. In contrast to Ms.

Garnier, Mr.Garnier remained in the work force because priority was assigned to his career. Mr. Garnier was the primary wage earner. Mr. Garnierdid not have his career interrupted for the sake of the children or family. He did not experience any economic workforce losses. [29] Third, after separation, and currently, there is great disparity between the parties’ incomes. Mr. Garnier receives both taxableand non-taxable pension benefits.

His total income for support purposes is $79,757, although he is also likely eligible to receive another$114 per month in non-taxable VAP if he sends confirmation of Andrew’s university attendance[i]. This sum would be payable untilJanuary 2024 when Andrew turns 25. In contrast, Ms. Garnier’s total income is $38,553, plus any imputed income. [30] Fourth, Ms. Garnier’s foray into crafts during the marriage did not lessen the economic losses she experienced. At best, Ms.Garnier’s craft sales allowed her to pay for Christmas presents and a few extras for the family. [31] In the circumstances, Ms.

Garnier proved that she is entitled to spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatorygrounds. [32] Did Mr. Garnier prove that income should be imputed to Ms. Garnier? Position of Mr. Garnier [33] As noted previously, Mr. Garnier seeks to impute income to Ms. Garnier for two reasons. First, because she made no effort tofile a hardship application with the superintendent of pensions so that she can access pension money from the LIRA. Mr. Garnier statesthat either $4,754.64 or $7,089.15 is available and should be imputed. Second, he states that Ms.

Garnier can easily earn about $5,000from her craft business. Position of Ms. Garnier [34] Ms. Garnier states that she can’t access the pension. She also denies earning money from the sale of crafts. She states that shemakes crafts to help ease her anxiety. Further, she does not have many sales, and if overhead expenses were factored in, she would notnet much of a profit. She also says that she sells items for her boyfriend because he lives in the Antigonish area, while the intendedmarket is in Halifax. In such instances, she gives the money to her boyfriend.

Decision [35] When determining the parties’ incomes, I am not restricted to that claimed for tax purposes. I have the discretionary authorityto impute income in appropriate circumstances. Further, when determining spousal support, the Divorce Act directs me to consider “thecondition, means, needs and other circumstances ...”. Means has an expansive definition, as reviewed in Leskun v Leskun, 2006 SCC25: [29] There is no support in the case law or in logic for the proposition that the Chambers judge was wrong to take into account theappellant's capital assets acquired after the marital break-up. In Strang v.

Strang, (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 112 (S.C.C.),the Court stated that the traditional understanding of the word "means" includes, "all pecuniary resources, capital assets, income fromemployment or earning capacity, and other sources from which the person receives gains or benefits" (p. 119). J. Payne and M.

Payneelaborate as follows: The word means includes all pecuniary resources, capital assets, income from employment or earning capacity, and any other sourcefrom which gains or benefits are received, together with, in certain circumstances, money that a person does not have in possession butthat is available to such person. (Canadian Family Law (2001), at p. 195).

Failure to Make Hardship Application [ 36 ] I will not impute income to Ms. Garnier because she failed to file a hardship application with the superintendent of pensions for four reasons. First, I cannot speculate as to whether the hardship application would be granted as it is a discretionary decision made by the superintendent. The decision is not mine to make, and I have insufficient evidence about the process and likely outcome. [ 37 ] Second, Ms. Garnier should not be required to collapse any part of her pension before age 55. Ms.

Garnier’s decision not to draw upon her share of the pension before age 55 is an appropriate one in the circumstances: W alts v Walts , 2016 ONSC 4777 . Ms. Garnier ought to invest for her future retirement. In the circumstances of this case, age 55 is the appropriate age for Ms. Garnier to begin to withdraw funds from the LIRA. [ 38 ] Third, Mr. Garnier’s monthly pension payment has not yet been reduced and will not be reduced until he turns 60. Mr. Garnier’s present financial position has not changed despite the division of his pension. [ 39 ] Fourth, double dipping is not a significant factor in this case.

In Boston v Boston , supra, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the payor’s retirement did not necessarily result in the termination of spousal support. Where double dipping is advanced, the court is required to examine need, ability to pay, and double recovery. To avoid double recovery, the court should consider what income and assets, or portions of assets, were not subject to equalization.

Further, the Supreme Court of Canada held that double recovery cannot always be avoided, and a pension previously divided can also be viewed as a maintenance asset in appropriate circumstances. [ 40 ] I find that d ouble dipping is not a significant factor in this case because: • Mr. Garnier’s income did not reduce after his pension was divided. Mr. Garnier receives the same amount of income that he previously earned. I infer that his pension is being treated like a disability payment because Mr. Garnier was released from the military for medical reasons. • Mr.

Garnier states that his pension will not reduce until he turns 60, although he provided no evidence about what his pension payment will be at that time. I have no evidence about the exact impact of division. Mr. Garnier turn 60 in about eight years. • At the time of the 2018 negotiations and the 2020 hearing, the parties understood that Mr. Garnier’s monthly pension would reduce immediately upon division. This understanding was incorrect. • Mr. Garnier did not provide evidence about the value of the pre-marriage pension benefits that weren’t divided.

Income from Unreported Sales [ 41 ] In contrast, I will impute income for the unreported money which Ms. Garnier earns from the sale of crafts, used furniture and other articles. In setting the amount, I find that the sum suggested by Mr. Garnier fails to recognize the following: • The initial cost of the furniture that Ms. Garnier fixes and sells, including household furniture that she no longer wants. • The cost of materials and supplies necessary to repair or to produce the crafts which are sold. • The cost of overhead, such as electricity, gas, and transportation expenses. • The fact that Ms.

Garnier does not always sell every

article that she posts or advertises. • The fact that she no longer sells at craft fairs. • The fact that Ms. Garnier sells items on behalf of her friend and does not keep any of the sale proceeds. [ 42 ] In the circumstances, I impute an additional annual income of $1,500 to Ms. Garnier. [ 43 ] What is the appropriate spousal support order? Position of the Parties [ 44 ] Ms. Garnier seeks to continue the CRO bridging payment of $1,221 until she turns 55 in July 2028. Mr. Garnier suggests a monthly payment of about $145 for three years. His arguments included calculations from the SSAG’s .

Decision [ 45 ] In my 2021 decision, I ordered a review and indicated: [37] The quantum of spousal support outlined in the CRO will continue to be paid until Mr. Garnier’s pension is divided and a further support order is determined. Thus, once Mr. Garnier’s pension is divided, the quantum of spousal support will be reviewed at a hearing during which all relevant factors will be considered, including the following: • The income of Ms. Garnier. • The income of Mr. Garnier, including imputing an amount for the monthly tax-free Veterans Affairs Pension. • The amount of Mr.

Garnier’s pension income which was earned between June 21, 1990 and October 16, 1993. [5] • Confirmation of the earliest date when Ms. Garnier can begin to access her share of Mr. Garnier’s pension from its locked-in

account. • The expenses and circumstances of Ms. Garnier. • The expenses and circumstances of Mr. Garnier. • The presence of compensatory and non-compensatory factors in the circumstances of the parties. • All other facts related to the spousal support factors and objectives stated in the Divorce Act . [ 46 ] In Strecko v Strecko , 2014 NSCA 66 and MacDonald v MacDonald, 2017 NSCA 34 , the Court of Appeal held that although the SSAG’s are not law, they are nevertheless a useful tool in the calculation of spousal support.

Therefore, my primary focus must be on the factors and objectives stated in the Divorce Act , while using the SSAG’s as a useful comparative tool as suggested by Mr. Garnier. Ms. Garnier also appeared to accept their guidance but indicated she had no access to the program. [ 47 ] In examining the parties’ budgets, I note that Mr. Garnier shares expenses with his common law spouse who is employed, although her income information was not provided. I also note that Ms. Garnier does not have a common law spouse. She is in a dating relationship with a man who lives in the Antigonish area. Ms.

Garnier’s expenses have not been inappropriately increased because she is dating. [ 48 ] I find that Ms. Garnier’s budget is a reasonable one. For example, Ms. Garnier’s shelter expenses of $1,145 are less than those budgeted by Mr. Garnier, who shares expenses with his spouse. The parties’ food budget is the same. Ms. Garnier pays slightly more for cable and internet than does Mr. Garnier, but he shares this expense with his partner. Ms. Garnier’s budget for household repairs, toiletries, and clothing are less than that budgeted by Mr. Garnier. Her motor vehicle expenses are reasonable.

Further, I have no issue with the money she provides to Andrew, or for her budgeted expenses for hair, insurance, health, gifts, magazines, holidays, entertainment, or savings. In addition, I note that in many instances, Mr. Garnier assigned a higher value for the same expense. I further recognize that even though Ms. Garnier has not been able to save or go on vacation, the budgeted expenses are still reasonable. For the most part, Ms. Garnier’s budget is a modest one. [ 49 ] I have looked to the various SSAG calculations, prepared by Mr.

Garnier’s counsel, for guidance after examining the parties’ respective budgets and circumstances. Ms. Garnier would ordinarily be entitled to mid-range spousal support. The mid-range, however, requires upward adjustment for the following reasons: • Mr. Garnier is only required to currently pay Andrew $582 per month, and not the table amount of $684. As previously noted in para 29, Mr. Garnier may be able to offset this amount by $114 in non-taxable VAP, until January 2024, if he but send confirmation of Andrew’s university attendance. Further, Andrew will graduate in August 2024. • Mr.

Garnier shares living expenses with his spouse who is employed. • Under the Divorce Act and SSAG’s , Ms. Garnier would be entitled to an indefinite award of spousal support because of the parties’ 24-year relationship. Mr. Garnier has only paid support for five years. Ms. Garnier will turn 55 in another five years. When she turns 55 in July 2028, Ms. Garnier should begin to access her share of Mr. Garnier’s pension. Therefore, Mr. Garnier will only pay support for about 10 years following a 25-year relationship. [ 50 ] In the circumstances, I find that Mr. Garnier must pay Ms.

Garnier monthly spousal support of $900 until Ms. Garnier turns 55 in July 2028, at which time the support obligation will terminate. The award is retroactive to February 2022. Mr. Garnier’s overpayment of $4,494 will be paid by a $75 monthly reduction in support until the credit is expunged. [ 51 ] Further, Mr. Garnier must designate Ms. Garnier as an irrevocable beneficiary of his life insurance to the extent that Ms. Garnier will be the recipient of a $25,000 lump sum payment, which in non-taxable, to secure the taxable spousal support obligation, which amount is to be decreased by $5,000 each year. Mr.

Garnier must provide Ms. Garnier with proof of compliance. After June 2028, Mr. Garnier is no longer obligated to designate Ms. Garnier as a beneficiary. At that time, Ms. Garnier must sign all required documents to be removed as an irrevocable beneficiary. Conclusion [ 52 ] Mr. Garnier must pay spousal support to Ms. Garnier in the amount of $900 per month effective February 2022 until June 2028, after which Mr. Garnier’s obligation to pay spousal support terminates. Mr. Garnier’s overpayment of $4,494 will be repaid by a $75 monthly reduction in support. Mr. Garnier must also provide Ms.

Garnier security for the support payment by designating her as an irrevocable beneficiary of a portion of his life insurance. [ 53 ] Ms. Hudson is to prepare the order. [ 54 ] In addition, if either party wishes to seek costs, submissions should be provided in 30 days and 15 days for any responses. Forgeron, J [i] See exhibit 4, at page 5 of exhibit B, which is a letter from Veteran’s Affairs Canada dated December 6, 2021.