The wife appealed a trial judgment regarding the equalization of net family property and spousal support.
At trial, the judge intervened after the close of evidence to request additional actuarial calculations based on the husband's reduced life expectancy, which significantly altered the pension valuations in his favour.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge overstepped her role and usurped the function of counsel, causing procedural unfairness.
The Court varied the equalization payment based on the original trial evidence.
The Court upheld the trial judge's use of the pro rata method for valuing the husband's pension, but set aside the lump sum spousal support award as it was based solely on an income differential without evidence of need.
