In the second section, the motion judge analyzed to what
extent the pension payout had already been equalized.
 In the motion judge’s view, the wife had relied on an unequalized pension value of $575,470: $843,603, the after-tax value
in the 2012 valuation, minus $268,133, the after-tax value in the
2007 valuation. The husband had submitted that, at most,
the unequalized value was $321,072:15 the difference between
the two after-tax pension values referred to in Mr. Norton’s 2007
valuation, namely, $589,205 (the after-tax value based on the
early retirement date) minus $268,133 (the after-tax value based
on the age 65 retirement date).
 The motion judge concluded that he could not rely on the
DSW valuation because it was too subjective and uncertain. Alt-
hough he had concerns about Mr. Norton’s opinion, he concluded
that he could accept it, subject to making a deduction for pre-
marriage service, which he found had been four and one-half
months. The motion judge concluded that the unequalized value
of the husband’s pension equated to $57,000 after tax over five
years, after deducting an amount for pre-marriage service [at
paras. 98, 99 and 101]:
It must be kept in mind that, to the extent that the pension has increased
in value, [the wife] is only entitled to claim against half of it. If the full value
that we now have had been added to [the husband’s] net family property at
separation, [the wife] would only get a credit for half of it.
And finally, the increased amount is being paid out over five years.
So the amount to vary spousal support over those years becomes less
. . . . .
. . . Result
I find that the value of the unequalized portion of [the husband’s] pension
is $575,470 after-tax or $57,000 annually over 5 years, after deducting an
amount for pre-marriage service.
 In the third section, the motion judge analyzed to what
extent he should rely on the Guidelines if the wife’s spousal support was to be varied. After referring to this court’s caution in
Gray v. Gray (2014), 122 O.R. (3d) 337,  O.J. No. 4519,
2014 ONCA 659, at para. 45, about “apply[ing] the [Guidelines]
wholesale” where complicating factors exist, such as variations
based on post-separation increases in a payor’s income, the
motion judge concluded, at para. 106, that,
15 The motion judge’s reasons say $321, 720, but this is an obvious typographical error.