income to the respondent based on her receipt of the equalization payment.
The equalization payment
 In my view, the equalization payment which exceeds
$3 million should be viewed as going some distance towards
addressing the respondent’s compensatory basis for entitlement.
Further, the respondent’s needs and means must also be viewed
in light of the equalization payment.
 The trial judge focussed on the respondent’s significantly
diminished standard of living after marriage breakdown. However, that reflected her financial status before any payment
of equalization. After receipt of the equalization payment, the
respondent’s means will be substantially increased and her need
will be substantially decreased.
 And, while the appellant’s means are considerable, they
will be affected both by the requirement that he make the equalization payment (over five years) and also by the fact that significant additional income has been imputed to him.
 There are two types of income that must be attributed to
the respondent, in addition to her imputed employment income:
post-judgment interest on the unpaid equalization payments,
and investment income on the equalization payments as the
respondent receives them. As has been noted, the trial judge
recognized the former but erred by failing to take into consideration the latter.
Calculating spousal support
 When calculating spousal support, one possible approach
to dealing with these sources of additional income to the
respondent would be to adjust the spousal support amount for
each of the five years of the phased payout. Such an approach
could take into account changes in investment rates, the increasing amounts of capital in the respondent’s hands and, arguably,
questions such as whether and how to treat the compounding of
interest. In my view, the complexities of such an approach tell
against it. It would virtually inevitably invite more litigation.
 Instead, I would establish a flat spousal support rate
that itself takes into consideration the various effects of the
equalization payment. This approach promotes finality for the
parties, a value that cannot be overstated, particularly at this
stage of intense and protracted litigation.