“Section 15.2(6)(d) of the Divorce Act promotes the objective of economic self-sufficiency only if it is “practicable” to do so and where the objective can be realized “within a reasonable period of time”. As the Court of Appeal pointed out in Fisher v. Fisher, self-sufficiency, with its connotation of economic independence, is a relative concept. It should be interpreted not as the ability to meet basic expenses, but as the ability to support a standard of living that is reasonable, having regard to the economic partnership that the parties enjoyed and could sustain during cohabitation and could reasonably anticipate afterward. It requires consideration of:
• The parties’ present and potential incomes;
• Their standard of living during cohabitation;
• The efficacy of any suggested steps to increase a party’s means;
• The parties’ likely post-separation circumstances (including the impact of equalization of their property);
• The duration of their cohabitation; and
• any other relevant factors.
The Court of Appeal stated in Linton:
Self-sufficiency is often more attainable in short-term marriages, particularly ones without children, where the lower-income spouse has not become entrenched in a particular lifestyle, or compromised career aspirations. In such circumstances, the lower-income spouse is expected either to have the tools to become financially independent or to adjust his or her standard of living.
In contrast, in most long-term marriages, particularly in traditional long-term ones, the parties’ merger of economic lifestyles creates a joint standard of living that the lower-income spouse cannot hope to replicate, but upon which he or she has become dependent. In such circumstances, the spousal support analysis typically will not give priority to self-sufficiency because it is an objective that simply cannot be attained.
L’Heureux-Dubé J. stated in Moge: “The longer the relationship endures, the closer the economic union, the greater will be the presumptive claim to equal standards of living upon its dissolution.”
Although the doctrine of spousal support, which focuses on equitable sharing, does not guarantee to either party the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, this standard is still relevant to support entitlement. Furthermore, great disparities that would result in the spouses’ respective standards of living in the absence of support are often a revealing indication of the economic disadvantages inherent in the role that one of the parties assumed during the marriage.”