“The Appellant argues that the Motion Judge erred in ordering ongoing support, given the principle against double dipping.
In Boston v. Boston, 2001 SCC 43 at paras. 63 to 65 the Supreme Court discussed the concern about double dipping. Justice Major for the majority expressed the principle that generally, in determining the quantum of spousal support, a court should focus on the portion of a payor’s assets that have not been equalized. He did, however, sanction exceptions where the payor has the means to pay and the payee continues to suffer economic hardship from the marriage, or where the payee has a need for support. In concluding that double dipping was not a factor in continuing support payments, the Motion Judge found that the Respondent had ongoing need for support and the Appellant had the means to pay. His findings of fact support the application of the two exceptions articulated in Boston.”