“The appellant also takes issue with what she refers to as the trial judge’s deviation from the “Rule of 65”, as set out in s. 3.3.3 of the SSAGs – that is, where the length of cohabitation in years plus the recipient’s age at the date of separation equals or exceeds 65, indefinite spousal support is appropriate: Climans v. Latner, 2020 ONCA 554, 449 D.L.R. (4th) 651, at para. 3.
Here again, the appellant’s position fails to consider the more nuanced explanations provided in the SSAGs. Section 7.5.3 of the SSAGs explains further:
The without child support formula provides that indefinite (duration not specified) support will be available even in cases where the marriage is shorter than 20 years if the years of marriage plus the age of the support recipient at the time of separation equals or exceeds 65. In a shorthand expression, we described this as the “rule of 65”. [Emphasis in original.]
The SSAGs make very clear at s. 13.8 that indefinite support is not permanent support:
Under the Advisory Guidelines duration of spousal support will be indefinite, under both formulas, where the parties have been married for 20 years or more, or where the “rule of 65” applies. But indefinite support, under the Guidelines as under the current law, does not necessarily mean that support is “permanent” or “infinite”, only that the duration has not been specified. We have purposely changed the language in this final version to convey that notion; our new terminology is “indefinite (duration not specified)”. Duration may be specified at some point in the future and support terminated, if entitlement ceases. [Emphasis added.]
Moreover, the SSAGs explain at s.7.5.3 that the Rule of 65 is, “intended to respond to the situation of older spouses who were economically dependent during a medium length marriage and who may have difficulty becoming self-sufficient given their age (emphasis added)”.”