pension was $747,200. The pension has matured and is “in pay”,
meaning that the appellant receives monthly payments.
 To satisfy an equalization payment of $313,002, the trial
judge ordered that an application be made to the pension administrator of the Canadian Forces pension to transfer this amount
to the respondent. The appellant would have preferred to pay
the respondent on a monthly basis by having her pension payments split at source. The respondent wanted an immediate
lump-sum transfer. The trial judge held that the Pension Benefits Division Act, S.C. 1992, c. 46, Sch. II (the “PBDA”), under
which the CFSA pension is administered, only allows for a lump-sum division.
 As explained below, I agree with the trial judge’s interpretation of the PBDA — it contains no provision that would enable
the pension administrator to divide monthly payments. Moreover, the trial judge’s order was not precluded by the pension
division provisions of the FLA. I would dismiss the appeal.
B. The Facts
(1) The parties
 The parties are both in their 50s. They cohabited for three
years before marrying in 1994. They separated in July of 2013.
They have three children who were aged 21, 19 and 17 at the
time of trial.
 The appellant was the primary income-earner during the
marriage. She joined the Canadian Forces before she married
the respondent. She retired in 2008 and started drawing her
Canadian Forces pension. The appellant now enjoys success as
a financial planner/advisor with the Royal Bank of Canada.
She has pensions from the Royal Bank Pension Plan and RBC
Dominion Securities Pension Plan, but they have yet to mature.
 During the relationship, the respondent qualified as
a teacher. He became a substitute teacher in 2005, and then
a permanent, full-time teacher in 2011.
(2) Proceedings at trial
 The parties were able to settle many of the issues arising
from the breakdown of their marriage. They went to trial to
resolve questions of child support, special expenses and property
issues. This appeal is only concerned with the division of the
appellant’s Canadian Forces pension.
 In ascertaining the value of this pension, the parties relied
upon a letter sent to the appellant by National Defence. This
letter, dated August 28, 2014, is significant because it also