CSI FP2 Based on Real Exam Environment

A proprietary award provides the claimant with an interest in specific property, rather than merely requiring the other party to pay money. The distinction is fundamental in unjust-enrichment and joint-family-venture analysis.

Where one spouse or partner has contributed to the acquisition, preservation, maintenance, or improvement of identifiable property and the legal requirements are satisfied, the court may impose a proprietary remedy, commonly through a constructive trust. Such a remedy recognizes a beneficial ownership interest in the property itself. Canadian jurisprudence distinguishes this from a monetary remedy, where the claimant simply receives compensation measured either by the value of services provided or by an appropriate share of wealth accumulated through the joint family venture.

Option A describes a monetary award, not a proprietary award. A right of first refusal does not constitute the standard equitable remedy arising from unjust enrichment, while an automatic equal division of future income is not the legal consequence of establishing a joint family venture.

Accordingly, the defining feature of a proprietary award is that the claimant receives a beneficial or ownership interest linked to a particular asset.

FPII reference/topic: Family Law — unjust enrichment; joint family venture; constructive trusts; monetary versus proprietary remedies.

===============

The question specifically directs that the penalty be calculated using the three-month interest formula. The calculation is:

Outstanding mortgage balance × annual interest rate × 3/12

Therefore:

$250,000 × 5% × 3/12 = $3,125

The correct answer is option C.

Closed mortgages generally restrict the amount of principal that can be prepaid without charge. When the permitted prepayment privilege is exceeded, a prepayment penalty may apply. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada explains that mortgage prepayment penalties are commonly calculated using either three months' interest or an interest rate differential, depending on the mortgage terms and lender's methodology.

The 36 months remaining in Fatima's term would be relevant if an interest-rate-differential calculation were required, but it does not alter the three-month interest calculation specified in the question.

The annual interest on the outstanding balance is:

$250,000 × 5% = $12,500

Three months represent one-quarter of a year:

$12,500 ÷ 4 = $3,125

Accordingly, the applicable penalty is $3,125.

FPII reference/topic: Savings Planning and Debt Management — mortgages; closed mortgages; prepayment privileges and penalties.

===============

A deceased person's legal representative cannot make a contribution to the deceased individual's own RRSP after death. However, a special rule permits the legal representative to contribute to a surviving spouse's or common-law partner's RRSP using the deceased person's available RRSP deduction room.

CRA confirms that this contribution may be made during the calendar year of death or within the first 60 days after the end of that year. The qualifying amount may then be deducted on the deceased individual's final income tax return, subject to the deceased person's available RRSP deduction limit.

For example, if an individual dies in July and has unused RRSP room, the executor does not have only 60 days from July. The relevant deadline extends through the year of death and into the first 60 days of the following calendar year.

Option A therefore applies the 60-day period from the wrong starting point. Option B ends the contribution period too early, while option D substitutes an arbitrary six-month period that is not the RRSP rule.

The strategy can be valuable because it creates a final deduction while simultaneously increasing tax-deferred retirement savings for the surviving spouse.

FPII reference/topic: Retirement Planning — RRSPs at death; spousal RRSP contributions; executor planning; final tax return.

===============

Diana's principal tax concern is the tax payable on qualifying spousal support payments that she receives.

Under Canadian income-tax rules, periodic spousal support paid pursuant to a qualifying court order or written agreement is generally deductible by the payer and taxable to the recipient. CRA therefore requires a recipient to include the taxable portion of qualifying spousal support in income.

Child support is treated differently. Under the current regime applicable to post-April 1997 arrangements, child support is generally not deductible by the payer and not taxable to the recipient. CRA expressly distinguishes the two forms of support on this basis.

Because Diana is receiving both forms of support, she should distinguish them carefully and plan for the income-tax liability associated with taxable spousal support. Depending on the amount received and the withholding arrangements, she may need to retain sufficient cash to satisfy tax instalments or the balance due when filing her tax return.

Option A concerns Bruce's potential deduction rather than Diana's tax liability. Options B and C incorrectly treat ordinary child-support payments as deductible or taxable.

FPII reference/topic: Family Law — taxation of support; spousal support; child support; payer deductions and recipient income inclusion.

===============