Is it unfair or unconscionable to make an equal division of pre-marriage pension entitlements in shorter marriages, particularly those of five years or less?

There are authorities suggesting that it may be unfair or unconscionable to make an equal division of pre-marriage pension entitlements in shorter marriages, particularly those of five years or less. This point was discussed in Pilotte v. Pilotte, 2013 NSSC 24, where B. MacDonald J. considered the application of ss. 13(d) (length of cohabitation during the marriage) and 13(e) (date and manner of acquisition) to pre-marriage pension entitlements. She said, at para. 19: There appears to be a growing body of decisions suggesting it is generally considered "unfair and unconscionable" to equally divide premarital asset value in a short relationship. Similarly it is generally considered not to be "unfair and unconscionable" to equally divide premarital asset value in a lengthy relationship. The exact reason why this should be so is not often discussed. As a result it is difficult to understand how factors (d) and (e) should be applied in marriages greater than 5 years but less than 20. Within that range considerations that appear to influence the outcome are: ‑ whether children were born of the relationship; ‑ the age of the parties at separation; ‑ whether the owner of the asset that has a premarital value was previously married and shared some portion of that asset with a former spouse; ‑ whether the spouse seeking an equal division of premarital value has substantial non‑ matrimonial assets or will retain substantial matrimonial assets; ‑ whether the spouse seeking an equal division of premarital value was a stay at home spouse who became financially dependent upon the other spouse. ‑ whether the premarital value of the asset was directly or indirectly maintained or increased by the spouse requesting equal division; for example, the premarital value of a matrimonial home may be enhanced as a result of the labour of a stay at home spouse.