What is the appropriate method for valuing a respondent's retirement pension?

The petitioner proposes that the respondent’s retirement pension be valued utilizing the retirement method. The respondent proposes that the termination value added method of valuation be utilized. The termination value added method has been favoured as the method most consistent with the concepts of the Family Law Act as a valuation as at the date of separation. This method does not consider any post separation factors such as salary increases and has been favoured because it is less speculative (Humphreys v. Humphreys (1987), 7 R.F.L. (3d) 113(Ont. H.C.))

The issue in this case is really whether the retirement method is more appropriate because there is no need to take into account any post separation factors and hence, in these particular circumstances there is no element of speculation. In this case there is no need to make a finding as to the day the respondent will retire nor is there any need to make assumptions with respect to what extent his salary will increase post separation. The respondent’s pension is totally paid up because of his disability. There will be no element of unfairness to the respondent utilizing the retirement method because a valuation based on that method will not result in the petitioner sharing in post separation services performed by the respondent or increased contributions to the plan by the respondent. Neither of those circumstances will occur in this case. Further, on the date of separation it was known that the respondent’s pension was paid up due to his disability and that he would not be returning to his employment. In these circumstances, therefore, the concerns with the retirement method expressed in Humphreys v. Humphreys which prompted the preference for the termination method do not exist.