“Double Dipping” in Spousal Support

As conveyed in the case of Boston v. Boston, there is no absolute prohibition against a spouse recovering double of his/her share in spousal support (commonly referred to as “double-dipping”).

However, the Court of Appeal in MacQuarrie v. MacQuarrie stressed the fact that courts will attempt to steer away from a ruling that awards a “double-dipping” of spousal support when it is fair to do so.

It is worth noting, that in MacQuarrie, Justice McQuaid pointed to the reality that some cases will call for a double recovery of spousal support in the interest of the principle of fairness.

Recent case law suggests that the principle against “double-dipping” surfaces when spousal support is awarded on a compensatory basis rather than one predicated upon necessity.

In Senek v. Senek, the Court ruled that, despite a material change in circumstance where the husband had recently retired, the wife was entitled to “double-dip” and receive spousal support from her husband’s pension simply on the basis of necessity. Therefore, when a Court is faced with the dilemma of awarding a double-recovery of spousal support, the Court will render a decision based on principles such as fairness and necessity.

To learn more about double dipping as well as the services provided by Krol & Krol, call 905.707.3370 to book a consultation today.