This is the terminology I'm familiar with from NZ divorce settlements, and since Canada is also a Commonwealth country operating on the basis of similar legal principles, I think this might be more suited than claim for or entitlement to compensation, which would be my second choice.

Interestingly enough, this is also how the EuGH translates Ausgleichsanspruch:
"It follows that the Staff Regulations do not in any way preclude the application of national rules of law of the kind contained in Paragraph 1587 et seq. of the BGB, providing for the ***compensatory adjustment*** of pension rights between divorced spouses."

Btw: sections 1587 et seq. refer to the Versorgungsausgleich and not to the actual matrimonial property settlement, but the term Ausgleichsanspruch is nevertheless used in sections 1587e, 1587h, 1587k, 1578l - the concept of an Ausgleichsanspruch as such is the same.

"Where personal debts are paid or satisfied out of matrimonial property, the Court must make a ***compensatory adjustment*** in favour of the other spouse. The Court may choose to increase that spouse's share of the matrimonial property, deem part of the debtor's separate property to be matrimonial property or order the debtor to pay the other spouse a sum of money. The Court's discretion is limited to choosing what kind of order to make. It does not have a broader discretion to decide whether or not to make any adjustment at all." (Butterworths Family Law in New Zealand - goes on for several pages on compensatory adjustments).

"The Family Court is ‘on the record’ as recognising the effects of the economic consequences of marriage breakdown by considering the roles played by men and women in the marriage and making some ***compensatory adjustment*** accordingly. Equitable sharing of both the advantages and disadvantages flowing from the division of responsibilities was considered and dealt with in Best v Best[13] and Mitchell v Mitchell.[14] In the latter case on the issue of spousal maintenance the Full Court took judicial notice of the AIFS research findings on the economic consequences of marriage in considering the likelihood of a former wife being able to support herself as a nurse, when she had not worked in that profession for 30 years."

"When it appears that the partition cannot be made equal between the parties according to their respective rights without prejudice to the rights and interests of some of them, and a partition is ordered, the court may adjudge compensation to be made by one party to another on account of the inequality, but such compensation shall not be required to be made to others by owners unknown, nor by an infant, unless it appears that such infant has personal property sufficient for that purpose and that his interest will be promoted thereby. In all cases, the court has power to make ***compensatory adjustment*** between the respective parties according to the ordinary principles of equity."
http://www.court.state.nd.us/court/opinions/10470.htm

Well, that almost covers the entire Anglo-American world, couldn't find any specific Canadian references though.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2002-12-05 01:52:40 (GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Sorry about the huge spaces between paras - didn\'t appear quite like that on my screen.