The report prepared by the wife’s expert, Mr. Norton, was
directed at “assist[ing] in the determination of the portion of [the
husband’s pension plan entitlements] that had been equalized,
and the portion . . . that had not been equalized”.
 In his report, Mr. Norton re-valued the husband’s pension
entitlement replacing the previous assumptions about retirement date and pension amount with the known date and
amounts.11 In the result, he arrived at a value of $843,603
(the “2012 valuation”) — as compared to his 2007 valuation of
$268,133. In his opinion, this meant that the ratio of $268,133
divided by $843,603 — or 31.78 per cent — of the commuted
value of the pension had been equalized, whereas 68.22
per cent of the commuted value of the pension had not been
 In his report, Mr. Norton expressed the view that a better approach to the matter might be to deem the husband to be
receiving the early pension payout in the form of an annual
lifetime income stream. 68.22 per cent of this amount could
then be treated as available for spousal support. In that case,
the unequalized portion of the husband’s pension payments
would total $49,865.56 prior to August 1, 2024, and $43,220.33
 In his report, Mr. Norton explained that his 2012 valuation included amounts for “retirement date earlier than
assumed” and for pre-marriage and post-separation service, but
effectively left unchanged the assumptions from 2007 about
mortality, interest and tax.
 Concerning the appendix to DSW’s second report, Mr.
Norton opined that the figures attributable to each factor only
applied if you did the calculations in the order in which DSW set
out the factors. If you did the calculations in a different order,
the number attributable to each factor, but not the total, would
change. Moreover, because “retirement age earlier than
assumed” was the first factor in DSW’s ordering, the value
attributed to that factor would never decrease if the ordering
changed — rather, it would only become larger. In Mr. Norton’s
view, no particular order is correct.
11 In his report, Mr. Norton explained that had the husband elected to take
his pension, his lifetime normal-form pension was $5,234.26 per month
plus a bridging supplement of $804.78 per month to age 65.
12 In his report, in calculating this ratio, Mr. Norton mistakenly referred to
the 2007 value as $263,133, yielding a ratio of 31.19 per cent.