Is there a double-dipping scheme where the husband's post-separation pension has not been equalized?

[22] Counsel for the applicant submits that this is not a case of double-dipping since this case should be distinguished from Boston v. Boston, supra, based on the reasons set out in paragraph [22] of that judgment. In Boston v. Boston, the court found that the husband earned some pension credits after separation, resulting in a higher pension value and that these credits had not been equalized. The trial judge considered that this unequalized portion of the pension was a factor in determining the amount of continuing support to be paid. In the case before me, the inequality does not arise from pension credits earned since the separation on 22 January 2003 (although obviously pension credits were earned by the applicant between 22 January 2003 and the last day of February 2009, when he retired). In this case, the alleged inequality arose from the fact that the applicant agreed to and did settle her net family property claim based upon a valuation calculated upon the presumption that the respondent would retire at age 65, when he has now retired at age 55. Counsel therefore submits that this case must be distinguished from the situation in Boston v. Boston, supra, on the grounds that here we are not arguing inequality based on post-separation pension credits.