The parties separated after a 36-year marriage.
The husband's pension was equalized as property, and he paid spousal support.
Upon retirement, the husband applied to reduce spousal support, arguing that paying support from his pension income constituted 'double dipping' since the pension had already been equalized.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that to avoid double recovery, it is generally unfair to allow the payee spouse to reap the benefit of the pension both as an asset and then again as a source of income.
The payee spouse has an obligation to use the assets received on equalization in an income-producing way.
The Court reinstated the motions judge's order reducing spousal support.
