The appellant and respondent divorced after a 29-year marriage.
The respondent was awarded indefinite spousal maintenance and a share of the appellant's pension based only on his contributions.
When the appellant was forced into early retirement, his sole income became his pension.
He applied to vary the maintenance order, arguing that paying support from his pension constituted 'double dipping' since it had already been divided as property.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no double recovery because the original pension division was a rough estimate that did not account for the employer's contributions or future value.
The Court upheld the chambers judge's decision to reduce, rather than terminate, the support payments.
