Is this a reversible error by a learned chambers judge in dealing with an interim application for maintenance?

SOUTHIN, J.A.: I agree that the learned chambers judge in dealing with this interim application for maintenance has not been shown to have committed a reversible error. I agree with Mr. Justice Gibbs that her reference to what the respondent could afford was simply a reference to his means, one of the factors set down by s.15(5). I am not saying that she might not have made a larger order and I am not saying that she might not have considered within Madam Justice L'Heureux-Dubé's comments in Willick v. Willick (1994) 1994 CanLII 28 (SCC), 6 R.F.L. (4th) 161 that there were a few things on his statement of expenses that he might have eschewed for the sake of his children. But this is a Court of Appeal and not a court of first instance and it is not for us to substitute our opinion, in the absence of reversible error, for that of a judge below. On that footing I would dismiss this appeal.