the wife requested that this court make a final support award.
In the circumstances, rather than ordering a new hearing,
I would address the issue of what spousal support order should
 It is undisputed that the wife is entitled to continuing
support. Accordingly, the first question is the husband’s means.
A related question is how to avoid double recovery in relation to
the early pension payout.
 As previously noted at footnote 2 of these reasons, in
Boston v. Boston, at para. 64, the Supreme Court observed that
“[t]o avoid double recovery [in awarding spousal support], the
court should, where practicable, focus on that portion of the
payor’s income and assets that have not been part of the equalization or division of matrimonial assets”. In Boston, such income
and assets included the portion of the husband’s pension income
derived from contributions made after the date of separation:
see Boston v. Boston,  O.J. No. 5655 (Gen. Div.), at para. 6;
and Boston v. Boston (S.C.C.), supra, at paras. 18 and 64.
 In this case, the parties disagree about which components of the now-known commuted value of the husband’s
pension should be treated as not having been part of the equalization. At a minimum, Boston makes clear that increases in
pension income attributable to pre-marriage and post-marriage
service are potentially available for support ( i.e., there is no
question that they were not part of the equalization). Further, in
this case, the parties’ separation agreement made any increase
attributable to early retirement potentially available for
support. Whether increases attributable to factors such as passage of time (there is now less time to accumulate the capital
necessary to pay the pension), changes in interest rates,
a change in the mortality assumption and the inclusion of a
post-retirement survival benefit should also be treated as available for support is less clear.
 Neither party submitted any authorities to address that
question. The DSW reports did not opine on the issue. Mr. Norton’s approach assumes that increases due to such factors are
potentially available for support without explanation. Where the
court intends to avoid double dipping, the legal issues as to how
the pension income should be apportioned to accomplish this are
best left to another case where the issue is more fully addressed
by the parties and the court below.
 Nonetheless, in all the circumstances, I would rely on
Mr. Norton’s opinion for the purposes of this case. There is no evidence or authority demonstrating that his approach is clearly
wrong. Further, as noted, the parties’ separation agreement