What are the factors that determine whether a spousal support Agreement can stand?

She summarized the effect of the factors and concluded: 28. I am satisfied that all of the s. 65(1) factors except 65(1)(b) (the length of the parties' separation) are relevant in this case. I agree with the plaintiff's counsel that the s. 65(1)(a), (e) and (f) factors favour the plaintiff's position, while the s. 65(1)(c) and (d) favour the defendant's position. Fairness is the key. ... 43. In the case before me, I have first applied the terms of the Agreement, and then considered the relevant factors in s. 65(1) of the Act. I have concluded the Agreement cannot stand. I find that the Agreement operates unfairly based on the following findings: 1. The plaintiff received no independent legal advice. Likely, the defendant did not either. The agreement was entered into at the instigation of the defendant for his clearly defined purposes and it was drawn, I am satisfied, basically on his instructions. The defendant was a sophisticated business person, familiar with matters monetary both through his extensive career in business and his post-secondary education. Comparatively, the plaintiff was unsophisticated in this regard — precisely the profile of a person who might benefit from independent legal advice. Furthermore, the assets listed in the schedules to the Agreement are described in general terms in some instances and with little information as to values. In sum, the Agreement was not “unimpeachably negotiated” as that phrase is used in Miglin v. Miglin, 2003 SCC 24, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 303, and its application puts the parties at odds with the applicable legislated objectives. 2. The Agreement is silent as to spousal support. Clearly, the parties were aware that this marriage ended the plaintiff's major and ongoing source of income. Yet no provision or accommodation was made for that certainty. The plaintiff's employment pension income was nominal; she was three years away from CPP and OAP income. While the Agreement does not contain a release of the plaintiff's spousal maintenance claim, it is silent in that regard. Neither party, at the time the Agreement was entered into, addressed the likelihood of that economic reality. 3. While the Agreement contemplated and described a co-mingling of assets to the limited extent of the use of a joint bank account, the parties did not contemplate the evolution of ownership of assets 20 or 30 years hence. It is unlikely the parties foresaw the dramatic increase over the years of the defendant's net worth. I am satisfied that the current circumstances were not within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the Agreement. It follows that the Agreement cannot be said to be reflective of the requisite considerations and the parties' responses to them. 4. All assets at issue were used for family purposes and they are family assets. 44. The effect of applying the Agreement in the current circumstances is that the plaintiff disproportionately bears the economic consequences of the breakdown of the marriage. Her post-separation standard of living is dramatically lower than it was during the 23 years of marriage. The plaintiff is not economically self-sufficient. She meets her reasonable monthly expenses only by the use of her modest capital assets which could require her to convert her present residence to cash in the foreseeable future in order to meet those needs. In the event of the continued deterioration in her health, there is simply no evidence of what her requirements could be.