Words and Phrases - "spouse"
Enns v. Canada, 2025 FCA 14
After the death of her husband, the taxpayer received the proceeds of his RRSP as the designated beneficiary thereof, and transferred those proceeds to her locked-in retirement account. Before allowing her appeal, from an assessment under s. 160(1)(a), on the basis that she was not his “spouse” on her receipt of his RRSP assets, Webb JA indicated:
- “Since the ordinary meaning of ‘spouse’ is a person who is married to another individual and since marriage ends on death, this would lead to the conclusion that when a marriage ends as a result of the death of one of the individuals, the survivor ceases to be the ‘spouse’ of the deceased.” (para. 30)
- When it added “common-law partner” to the Act in 2000, Parliament also changed all of the references to “spouse” to “spouse or common-law partner” so that it “is self-evident that Parliament intended the Act to apply equally to couples, whether they were married or in a common-law partnership” (para. 41) and so “that ‘spouses’ and ‘common-law partners’ should be treated in the same way” (33).
- It therefore was relevant that the opening part of the definition of “common-law partner” contemplates two individuals who are cohabiting in a conjugal relationship, and that “[t]wo individuals would not be cohabiting in a conjugal relationship following the death of one of them” (para. 36).
- Although the “common-law partner” definition generally deemed those who have been cohabiting to thereafter be common-law partners, and a literal application of this provision would deem them to continue as such even after one had died, this “could not have been the intended result” (para. 40).
- Furthermore, since in light of s. 251(6)(b) “a marriage ends on the death of one of the individuals … [t]o have the same rules apply to individuals in a common-law partnership, that relationship would also have to cease upon the death of one of the partners” (para. 44).
Enns v. The King, 2023 TCC 28
At issue was whether a widow receiving funds from the RRSP of her deceased spouse was a “spouse” for purposes of s. 160(1)(a), so that s. 160 could be applied regarding his tax debt. In similar circumstances, Kiperchuk had briefly found (without the “spouse” issue having been specifically raised) that a widow was not a spouse of her deceased husband, whereas in Kuchta, Graham J, after a thorough analysis of that precise issue, had concluded the opposite.
Russell J indicated that, in light inter alia of the principle of judicial comity, he would follow the same Kuchta approach (notwithstanding that Kuchta might be technically a nullity as it had been decided by a substituted judge – see High-Crest). S 160 applied.
23 February 2004 External T.I. 2004-0057051E5 F - RAP - Personne séparée
Regarding whether the correspondent’s wife was eligible to participate in the home buyers' plan given that you have been living separate and apart since December 2003, CRA stated:
[P]ersons united by marriage remain spouses until the marriage is legally dissolved.
Thus, where an individual has a spouse at the time of withdrawal who owned a home during the period beginning on January 1, 2000 and ending 31 days before the date of withdrawal in 2004, and the individual occupied the home during their marriage, it is our view that the individual will not be able to participate in the HBP.
Kuchta v. The Queen, 2015 TCC 289, 2015 DTC 1229 [at 1509]
The taxpayer was the sole designated beneficiary of two RRSPs held by her husband at his death in 2007. When his estate failed to pay an assessment respecting his 2006 year, the Minister assessed the taxpayer for the same amount under s. 160(1). In finding that this transfer after her husband’s death constituted a transfer to the deceased’s spouse (so that the s. 160(1) assessment was valid), Graham J noted that
- although dictionary definitions and the legal meaning of spouse “clearly contemplate a relationship between two living people” (para. 22), “people routinely use the word ‘spouse’ to refer to the surviving member of a coupled” (at para. 23),
- some (but not all) provisions referred to “spouse” to mean a widow or widower (ss. 146(8.91) and 70(6)) or to be inclusive of widows and widowers (ss. 72(2) and 148(8.2)), and
- the alternative interpretation “would absurdly provide relief only to those individuals whose spouses had failed to comply with the tax system during their lifetimes” - and given that “transfers of property to widows and widowers under a will are clearly caught by subsection 160(1)” (para. 74), such a system would “irrationally…only provide relief if a tax debtor had a RRSP” (para. 72).
He noted that using the colloquial meaning of "spouse" was not necessarily transferable to other provisions with a different context and purpose (para. 79).
Re McFarland (1987), 39 DLR (4th) 703 (Ont. H.C.)
"[I]n general usage 'spouse' means a person to whom one is bound by a legal marriage."