“Many proponents of the deemed selfsufficiency model effectively elevate it to the preeminent objective in determining the right to, quantum and duration of spousal support. In my opinion, this approach is not consonant with proper principles of statutory interpretation. The objective of selfsufficiency is only one of several objectives enumerated in the section and, given the manner in which Parliament has set out those objectives, I see no indication that any one is to be given priority. Parliament, in my opinion, intended that support reflect the diverse dynamics of many unique marital relationships. Osborne J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal made this point in Linton v. Linton (1990), 1990 CanLII 2597 (ON CA), 1 O.R. (3d) 1, at p. 27:
In not attaching any particular priority to the factors to be considered and the objectives sought to be achieved in making a spousal support order, it seems to me that Parliament recognized the great diversity of marriages and the need for judges to deal with support entitlement and quantum on a case by case basis.
It is also imperative to realize that the objective of selfsufficiency is tempered by the caveat that it is to be made a goal only “in so far as practicable”. This qualification militates against the kind of “sink or swim” stance upon which the deemed selfsufficiency model is premised. (See Bailey, supra, at p. 633, and Droit de la famille — 623, [1989] R.D.F. 196 (Que. C.A.), at pp. 2012.).”