The appellant says that there was a division of capital by Collver J. at the original trial and that it is unfair that his after-acquired capital should now be tapped to pay the respondent continuing support. The present case does not raise the “double dipping” issue mentioned in Strang and dealt with at length in relation to pension benefits in Boston v. Boston, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 413, 2001 SCC 43… [quote from Boston omitted].
"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.