I point out that this is not a case of so called "double dipping" or "double recovery", at least in relation to pension entitlement, where the payor is being asked to use assets that were previously equalized as between the parties to pay support to the payee spouse. At most, the division of assets left the petitioner in control of his companies which were then available to generate ongoing income and capital appreciation for him. Even if this was a double recovery case, such assets may be looked to where the needs of the payee spouse require it. See Boston v. Boston, 2001 SCC 43, at paras. 63-64.
"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.