|
110 Mr. Boston paid off his wife’s claim, transferred assets and avoided a division of his pension rights and credits, hence the problem when he retired. He took the view that the payment of support out of the income stream generated by his pension was inherently unfair, and that this amounted to double dipping. He asserts that the income stream arising out of an already equalized pension should be insulated from contribution to support. This problem has never been addressed directly by this Court, although it was mentioned in Strang v. Strang, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 112, at p. 120, where Cory J. considered it irrelevant, given the facts of that case. Interestingly enough, it appears that counsel for the debtor spouse, in that case, advanced a distinction between property assets and maintenance assets. The former would be free from contribution to spousal maintenance. Pension rights would fall within this category (see p. 119). A basically identical argument is raised in this appeal.
|