the early pension payout had already been equalized. The
motion judge found that the capital value of the portion of the
husband’s pension payout that had not previously been subject
to equalization amounted to $575,470 after tax. However, he
concluded that the wife was entitled to claim against only one
half of that amount for purposes of spousal support, which he
added to the husband’s income, which he calculated as $57,000
after tax annually (less an unspecified deduction for pre-marriage
service), payable over five years.
 Although the motion judge found that the husband’s total
annual income, including $57,5003 on account of his early pension payout, produced a range, under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines4 (“Guidelines”), of roughly $6,000 to $8,000 per
month for 2012 and 2013, the motion judge chose not to award
Guidelines support. Instead, he increased the spousal support
payable to the wife under the separation agreement by $2,350
per month, for a total of $5,000 per month, commencing September 1, 2012.
 In the motion judge’s view, while the wife had contributed
to the husband’s ability to receive the income at issue, there was
also an element of luck involved in the husband’s employer’s
decision to make the early pension payout available. Moreover,
the motion judge found that the wife had mismanaged her
finances and that her expenses of approximately $88,000 per
year were unreasonable.
 For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the appeal as
it relates to child support but allow the appeal as it relates to
B. The Child Support Issue
 The wife submits that the motion judge erred in determining that the youngest child no longer qualified for child support under the separation agreement as of January 1, 2013 or, in
the alternative, that she was no longer a child of the marriage
within the meaning of the Divorce Act. She asks for an order
that the husband pay retroactive child support for the period
January 1, 2013 to May 1, 2013 based on the husband’s taxable
3 The motion judge calculated the figure at $57,000, at para. 101 of his reasons, but referred to $57,500, at para. 141, when addressing the Spousal
Support Advisory Guidelines calculation. At para. 161 of his reasons, he
said the parties could impute $57,000 to the husband’s income for the
years 2012 to 2017.
4 (Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2008).