What is the current state of the case law regarding long-term support for a young woman with mental health issues?

A time of transition is necessary for the petitioner to attain wellness, promote her economic well-being and achieve self-sufficiency. In my view, a period of five years is reasonably sufficient to clarify present uncertainties and to answer the many questions that continue to plague these parties, such as the state of the petitioner’s mental health and treatment, compliance with medications, her employability and future income, possible retraining, her·needs, the circumstances of their daughter, and the state of affairs of the respondent. An indefinite support award to the petitioner would be a disincentive for her to attain wellness and comply with medication, and would not promote achievement of economic self-sufficiency within a reasonable time. The petitioner has an obligation to attain wellness and to work. She has had meaningful employment in the past for a period of several years. Here, unlike the facts in Leskun v. Leskun, the petitioner is still relatively young and the evidence does not show that her emotional state was caused by any misconduct by the respondent (2006 SCC 25, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 920). In my view, it is within the ability of the petitioner herself to improve her mental health by following medical advice. Indeed, the petitioner, and only she, can determine her future path; the alternative is inauspicious.