which he found limited the wife’s claim for spousal support,
— the wife had been mismanaging her affairs and had not
been reasonable with her expenses;
— there were no continuing financial consequences or expenses
relating to the obligation to care for children of the marriage;
— the wife’s economic hardship arose from her mismanagement of the equalization payment rather than the breakdown of the marriage;
— requiring the husband to effectively pay the wife’s post-
separation debts would not promote economic self-sufficiency;
— at least some of the husband’s post-separation increase in
income resulted from luck unrelated to the wife’s contribu-
tions to the husband’s career.
 The husband submits that there is no basis on which to
interfere with the motion judge’s discretionary decision relating
to the quantum of spousal support.
(7) Standard of review
 The standard of review on support issues is highly deferential. Appellate courts should not interfere with support
orders unless the reasons “disclose an error in principle, a significant misapprehension of the evidence, or unless the award is
clearly wrong”: Hickey v. Hickey,  2 S.C.R. 518, 
S.C.J. No. 9, at paras. 11-12.
 I would allow the appeal of the spousal support award.
In my view, the motion judge erred in principle in his approach
and arrived at an amount that was clearly wrong. I say this for
two main reasons.
(a) Erroneous departure from the Guidelines
 As already mentioned, the Guidelines, while not binding,
should not be lightly departed from. This is in large part
because, without them, it is very difficult to establish a principled basis for arriving at a figure for spousal support. In my
view, the motion judge erred in departing from the Guidelines
for the reasons he did, namely, the good luck associated with
the husband’s early pension payout opportunity (at para. 140)