“Limits on the quantum or duration of spousal support are sometimes an appropriate way to address the situation of a dependent spouse who may not make reasonable efforts toward self-sufficiency without such limits. See Bildy v. Bildy (1997), 1997 CanLII 12240 (ON SC), 28 R.F.L. (4th) 315 (Ont. Gen. Div.); (1999), 1999 CanLII 9319 (ON CA), 42 O.R. (3d) 737 (Ont. C.A.) and Purcell v. Purcell (1996), 1996 CanLII 1355 (ON CA), 26 R.F.L. (4th) 267 (Ont. C.A.). As a matter of law, such limits are not necessary. For example, in Choquette v. Choquette (1998), 1998 CanLII 5760 (ON CA), 39 R.F.L. (4th) 384 (Ont. C.A.), the husband appealed a decision awarding indefinite periodic support. The Court of Appeal held that:
…the husband’s concerns that the wife may not become self-sufficient as quickly as anticipated by the trial judge are better dealt with on a variation application brought in that eventuality. The non-happening of an anticipated event can constitute a material change in circumstances within the meaning of the Divorce Act: Trewin v. Jones (1997), 1997 CanLII 1105 (ON CA), 26 R.F.L. (4th) 418 (Ont. C.A.). Counsel for the wife conceded that proof of malingering by the wife could be the basis for a variation application. (p.386)
Limits on the quantum or duration of support are nevertheless an effective way of emphasizing the support recipient’s obligation under section 15.2(6)(d) of the Divorce Act.”