The crux of Mr. Norton’s valuation conclusion is set out in
Appendix “B” to these reasons.
(k) Procedural history of the wife’s change motion
 The change motion was heard initially on October 21 and 22,
2014. Following the October 21-22, 2014 hearing, the motion judge
issued an endorsement on November 26, 2014 indicating he was
satisfied that there had been a material change in circumstances
such that spousal support should be varied and that the claim for
child support should be dismissed. However, he indicated that he
was left with certain questions concerning the expert evidence.
 In particular, the motion judge felt unable, without further assistance, to determine what ordering of the factors in the
appendix to DSW’s second report would be best in this case.
He was also uncertain whether to accept the percentage difference between equalized and unequalized amounts as set out in
Mr. Norton’s report. The motion judge indicated that he had not
yet made a decision about whether the Guidelines should apply,
but noted that the parties had not made submissions concerning
mean-and-needs based support. Accordingly, he asked whether
he should receive further expert evidence, and requested submissions on what the spousal support should be if the Guidelines did not apply.
 The change motion hearing resumed on February 13, 2015.
On that date, among other things, the motion judge accepted the
wife’s counsel’s submissions that he should not receive further
evidence from the experts. The motion judge refused the wife’s
request to file a further affidavit indicating she had lost her job.
He went on to receive further submissions from counsel concerning a means-and-needs approach to support.
( l) The husband’s circumstances at the time of the
 The motion judge found that the husband had re-partnered
at the time of the change motion and that his new spouse’s
annual income as a part-time nurse was approximately $80,000.
He also found that, in 2012, the husband’s income from employment was $123,047, his net professional income was $43,728
and his line 150 income was $859,919,13 and that, in 2013,
13 The finding at para. 124 that the husband’s line 150 total income was
$859,919 was likely a typographical error. I have accepted the figure in
the husband’s T1 general 2012 Income Tax and Benefit Return in the
record which shows a total income of $855,918.84.