The approach in Read v. Read, supra, is persuasive, and I find that 50 per cent of the separation allowance in this case is attributable to compensation for past service. Much of that service was performed during the marriage, with contributions from both parties, particularly in the last five years of the husband's employment. As well, both parties made retirement plans based on the expected receipt of the separation allowance. I therefore order that 50 per cent of the separation allowance is a family asset, to be divided equally between the parties. The remaining 50 per cent of the separation allowance relates to loss of future income. It is not a family asset, and belongs to the husband alone.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.