Changing Supreme Court Family Law Orders - Revision history

Iris Turaglio at 01:36, 13 August 2025

2025-08-13T01:36:01Z

Iris Turaglio at 19:01, 10 July 2025

2025-07-10T19:01:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:01, 10 July 2025
Line 29:		Line 29:
	The threshold to change or set aside a contract is pretty high and the categories of grounds include fraud, undue influence, duress, coercion, fresh evidence that was not known at the time the original contract (or in this case consent order) was entered into, and abuse of process.		The threshold to change or set aside a contract is pretty high and the categories of grounds include fraud, undue influence, duress, coercion, fresh evidence that was not known at the time the original contract (or in this case consent order) was entered into, and abuse of process.

	The ~~above~~ Shackleton decision quoted above involved a request to change consent order relating to property division.		The Shackleton decision quoted above involved a request to change consent order relating to property division.

	The legal test for changing a final spousal support order is slightly less stringent than the legal test for changing a final order relating to property or debt division. See the section "Orders about spousal support" later in this chapter for the legal test you must meet to change a spousal support order.		The legal test for changing a final spousal support order is slightly less stringent than the legal test for changing a final order relating to property or debt division. See the section "Orders about spousal support" later in this chapter for the legal test you must meet to change a spousal support order.

Iris Turaglio at 18:59, 10 July 2025

2025-07-10T18:59:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:59, 10 July 2025
Line 2:		Line 2:
	\|CoAuthor = [[Iris Turaglio]]		\|CoAuthor = [[Iris Turaglio]]
	\|ChapterEditors = [[Shannon Aldinger]] and [[Julie Brown]]		\|ChapterEditors = [[Shannon Aldinger]] and [[Julie Brown]]
	}}Unless you're talking about property and debt or divorce, there really is no such thing as an absolutely final order in court proceedings about family law matters. Children get older, adults take new jobs and start new relationships, and the obligations involved in leaving a relationship don't end with the final order. As time passes, ~~final~~ orders often need to be updated as circumstances change.		}}Unless you're talking about property and debt or divorce, there really is no such thing as an absolutely final order in court proceedings about family law matters involving parenting, monthly child and monthly spousal support. Children get older, adults take new jobs and start new relationships, and the obligations involved in leaving a relationship don't end with the final order. As time passes, parenting, and monthly child/spousal orders often need to be updated as circumstances change depending on the type of order that was pronounced.

	Changing an order is called ''varying'' an order. Sometimes an order includes a provision which sets out a list of circumstances under which a final order can be changed, but many (or even most) do not. In general, orders made under the federal ''[[Divorce Act]]'' and the provincial ''[[Family Law Act]]'' may be varied if there has been an important change in circumstances since the order was made. Not only does the change have to be important, but also varying the order needs to be the right solution. A court will not vary an order just because one party does not like the original order.		Final property or debt order, and most final lump-sum spousal and even some final monthly support orders rarely if ever get changed. You should speak to a lawyer about whether or not a judge would vary such an order if one was pronounced in your case.

			Changing an order is called ''varying'' an order. Sometimes an order includes a provision which sets out a list of circumstances under which a final order can be changed, but many (or even most) do not. In general, orders made under the federal ''[[Divorce Act]]'' and the provincial ''[[Family Law Act]]'' may be varied if there has been an important change in circumstances since the order was made, called "material change in circumstances" in court cases, depending on the type of order that was pronounced. Not only does the change have to be important, but also varying the order needs to be the right solution. A court will not vary an order just because one party does not like the original order.

	This section discusses when you might want to apply to court to vary an order, and how to do it.		This section discusses when you might want to apply to court to vary an order, and how to do it.
Line 25:		Line 27:
	order will operate as a final judgment: ''[https://canlii.ca/t/gc6td Campbell v. Campbell (1954)]'', [1955] 1 DLR 304 (BCSC). For the same reason that courts enforce settlement agreements, to provide certainty to parties settling disputes, consent orders are not easily altered. Subject to statutory provisions otherwise a consent order may be set aside or altered in substance only in circumstances which justify the same treatment to the underlying contract […]</blockquote>		order will operate as a final judgment: ''[https://canlii.ca/t/gc6td Campbell v. Campbell (1954)]'', [1955] 1 DLR 304 (BCSC). For the same reason that courts enforce settlement agreements, to provide certainty to parties settling disputes, consent orders are not easily altered. Subject to statutory provisions otherwise a consent order may be set aside or altered in substance only in circumstances which justify the same treatment to the underlying contract […]</blockquote>

	The threshold to change or set aside a contract is pretty high and the categories of grounds include fraud, undue influence, duress, coercion, fresh evidence that was not known at the time the original contract (or in this case consent order) was entered into, and abuse of process. ~~For more information about changing~~ consent ~~orders~~ for spousal support~~, see~~ the section "~~Changing consent orders~~ for spousal support" later in this chapter.		The threshold to change or set aside a contract is pretty high and the categories of grounds include fraud, undue influence, duress, coercion, fresh evidence that was not known at the time the original contract (or in this case consent order) was entered into, and abuse of process.

			The above Shackleton decision quoted above involved a request to change consent order relating to property division.

			The legal test for changing a final spousal support order is slightly less stringent than the legal test for changing a final order relating to property or debt division. See the section "Orders about spousal support" later in this chapter for the legal test you must meet to change a spousal support order.

			As for changing final orders relating to parenting and child support, the legal test required to change these is lower especially where the order relates to child support and the payor parent's income has increased from what it was when the final child support order was made. See the section "Orders about the care of children" and "Orders fro child support" later in this chapter.

	===Interim versus final orders===		===Interim versus final orders===
			Interim orders are only meant to provide temporary relief until trial, they are not a final determination of the parties' rights and obligations.

			The trial judge is the one who makes the final determination of the parties' rights and obligations coming out of the relationship and may, as part of the court's final decision, decide to make an order that differs from what was determined in an interim order. Because the trial judge is tasked with the final determination of the case, the trial judge can change an interim order without needing to see a material change in circumstances.

			For example, an interim order pronounced one year after the parties' separation may require a party pay $1,000 per month in spousal support starting the date of the interim order, but at trial the judge may grant a final order that the same party pay $500 per month starting the date of separation to the date of trial. This means that the interim order is automatically cancelled by the trial judge's final order, and the payor's obligation for pay spousal support includes the year from separation (not included in the interim order) and extends to the date of trial. In such a case, the payor will owe one year of spousal support of $500/month he did not pay, but they will also be credited for extra amount of spousal support they paid under the interim order (assuming the payor paid the $1,000 per month).

	Although it is sometimes possible to vary an interim order, this chapter mostly applies to final orders.		Although it is sometimes possible to vary an interim order, this chapter mostly applies to final orders.

Line 51:		Line 65:
	<blockquote><tt>(e) any potential adverse effect, on a party or a child of a party, of either making or declining to make an order under subsection (3).</tt></blockquote>		<blockquote><tt>(e) any potential adverse effect, on a party or a child of a party, of either making or declining to make an order under subsection (3).</tt></blockquote>

	Due to the cost, time, and stress of going to court, it is often not worthwhile to spend your time, energy, and money going to court to try to change an interim order. It is often best to just get an early trial date and keep trying to settle the matter.		Due to the cost, time, and stress of going to court, it is often not worthwhile to spend your time, energy, and money going to court to try to change an interim order. It is often best to just get an early trial date and keep trying to settle the matter because, per above, a trial judge can make a final order that changes an interim order without your having to show a material change in circumstances: you only have to convince the trial judge of what the correct rights and obligations each party has coming out of the relationship.

	==Orders about the care of children==		==Orders about the care of children==

Nate Russell at 19:59, 25 June 2025

2025-06-25T19:59:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:59, 25 June 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{JP Boyd on Family Law TOC\|expanded = bcsc}}{{JPBOFL Editor Badge		{{JP Boyd on Family Law TOC\|expanded = bcsc}}{{JPBOFL Editor Badge
	\|CoAuthor = [[Iris Turaglio]]		\|CoAuthor = [[Iris Turaglio]]
			\|ChapterEditors = [[Shannon Aldinger]] and [[Julie Brown]]
	}}Unless you're talking about property and debt or divorce, there really is no such thing as an absolutely final order in court proceedings about family law matters. Children get older, adults take new jobs and start new relationships, and the obligations involved in leaving a relationship don't end with the final order. As time passes, final orders often need to be updated as circumstances change.		}}Unless you're talking about property and debt or divorce, there really is no such thing as an absolutely final order in court proceedings about family law matters. Children get older, adults take new jobs and start new relationships, and the obligations involved in leaving a relationship don't end with the final order. As time passes, final orders often need to be updated as circumstances change.

Nate Russell at 20:39, 2 April 2025

2025-04-02T20:39:54Z

Nate Russell at 20:38, 2 April 2025

2025-04-02T20:38:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 2 April 2025
Line 225:		Line 225:
	====Financial Statements====		====Financial Statements====

	When an application to vary a child support order is brought, one or both parties will have to produce fresh financial information. This information is almost always given through a Financial Statement~~, Form F8 of Supreme Court Family Rules~~, which describes a person's income, expenses, assets, and liabilities and is given on the person's oath or affirmation like an affidavit. These are the rules about who may have to produce a Financial Statement:		When an application to vary a child support order is brought, one or both parties will have to produce fresh financial information. This information is almost always given through a Form F8 Financial Statement, which describes a person's income, expenses, assets, and liabilities and is given on the person's oath or affirmation like an affidavit. These are the rules about who may have to produce a Financial Statement:

	*The payor must produce a Financial Statement dealing with their income if the payor is paying child support according to the tables.		*The payor must produce a Financial Statement dealing with their income if the payor is paying child support according to the tables.
Line 233:		Line 233:
	These new Financial Statements are needed to give the court the information it will need to make a new child support order, if it is in fact willing to vary the original order.		These new Financial Statements are needed to give the court the information it will need to make a new child support order, if it is in fact willing to vary the original order.

	Links to and examples of the Financial Statement and other court forms can be found in [[Supreme Court Forms (Family Law)\|Supreme Court Forms & Examples]]. For more information on Financial Statements, see the page on [[~~Discovery~~ and ~~Disclosure in Family Law]], in particular the section on the process for the [[~~Discovery ~~and Disclosure~~ in Family Law~~#The Supreme Court\|Supreme Court~~]].		Links to and examples of the Financial Statement and other court forms can be found in [[Supreme Court Forms (Family Law)\|Supreme Court Forms & Examples]]. For more information on Financial Statements, see the page on [[Disclosure and Discovery in Supreme Court Family Law Proceedings]].

	====Statutory provisions====		====Statutory provisions====

Nate Russell at 23:51, 27 March 2025

2025-03-27T23:51:56Z

Show changes

Nate Russell: Interim page for live site pending family law litigation chapters update

2024-01-12T00:01:43Z

Interim page for live site pending family law litigation chapters update

New page

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:36, 13 August 2025
Line 244:		Line 244:
	*The payor must produce a Financial Statement dealing with their income if the payor is paying child support according to the tables.		*The payor must produce a Financial Statement dealing with their income if the payor is paying child support according to the tables.
	*Both parties must produce Financial Statements dealing with income if custody is shared or split.		*Both parties must produce Financial Statements dealing with income if custody is shared or split.
	*Both parties must produce complete Financial Statements covering income, expenses, and assets and liabilities if there is a claim about the children's special expenses or a claim for undue hardship, the payor's income is above $150,000 per year, or one or more of the children are ~~over~~ the age of majority.		*Both parties must produce complete Financial Statements covering income, expenses, and assets and liabilities if there is a claim about the children's special expenses or a claim for undue hardship, the payor's income is above $150,000 per year, or one or more of the children are the age of majority (19 years in BC) or older.

	These new Financial Statements are needed to give the court the information it will need to make a new child support order, if it is in fact willing to vary the original order.		These new Financial Statements are needed to give the court the information it will need to make a new child support order, if it is in fact willing to vary the original order.
Line 276:		Line 276:

	*The payor must produce a Financial Statement dealing with their income if the payor is paying child support according to the tables.		*The payor must produce a Financial Statement dealing with their income if the payor is paying child support according to the tables.
	*Both parties must produce Financial Statements dealing with income if ~~custody~~ is shared or split.		*Both parties must produce Financial Statements dealing with income if parenting time is shared or split (ie. 40% to 60% of the time with each parent).
	*Both parties must produce complete Financial Statements covering income, expenses, and assets and liabilities if there is a claim about the children's special expenses, a claim for undue hardship, the payor's income is above $150,000 per year, or one or more of the children are ~~over~~ the age of majority.		*Both parties must produce complete Financial Statements covering income, expenses, and assets and liabilities if there is a claim about the children's special expenses, a claim for undue hardship, the payor's income is above $150,000 per year, or one or more of the children are the age of majority (age 19) or older.

	This gives the court the information it will need to make a new child support order, if it is in fact willing to vary the original order.		This gives the court the information it will need to make a new child support order, if it is in fact willing to vary the original order.
Line 307:		Line 307:
	It used to be the case that a claim for spousal support that was dismissed in a final judgment was permanently dismissed, such that any future application for support could not proceed, no matter how things might have changed for the person in financial need.		It used to be the case that a claim for spousal support that was dismissed in a final judgment was permanently dismissed, such that any future application for support could not proceed, no matter how things might have changed for the person in financial need.

	A 2003 judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, ''[https://canlii.ca/t/5cdj Gill-Sager v. Sager]'', 2003 BCCA 46, called into question just how ''final'' final orders about spousal support should be. In that case, the court issued a strong caution to trial judges against permanently dismissing a spouse's claim for support. Subsequent cases have interpreted this decision to mean that spousal support claims should never be permanently dismissed, only adjourned, so that it will always be open to a spouse to apply for spousal support later on. ~~In practice~~ this ~~means that final orders should not say that a claim for support is ''dismissed'' but is only ''adjourned generally'';~~ in ~~other words~~, ~~they should say~~ that ~~the issue~~ is ~~not decided~~.		A 2003 judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, ''[https://canlii.ca/t/5cdj Gill-Sager v. Sager]'', 2003 BCCA 46, called into question just how ''final'' final orders about spousal support should be. In that case, the court issued a strong caution to trial judges against permanently dismissing a spouse's claim for support. Subsequent cases have interpreted this decision to mean that spousal support claims should never be permanently dismissed, only adjourned, so that it will always be open to a spouse to apply for spousal support later on. Despite this, in practice judges at trial, if satisfied that there is no entitlement to spousal support, will dismiss a spousal support claim.

	A party who seeks spousal support after a judgment dismissing support must be able to establish a significant change in their financial circumstances, such that if the change were known of at the time of trial, the judge would have made a different decision. For example, a party who develops a serious, disabling illness following trial — a trial held while the party was in perfect health — and can no longer hold a job, might be entitled to apply for spousal support when the illness is discovered.		A party who seeks spousal support after a judgment dismissing support must be able to establish a significant change in their financial circumstances, such that if the change were known of at the time of trial, the judge would have made a different decision. For example, a party who develops a serious, disabling illness following trial — a trial held while the party was in perfect health — and can no longer hold a job, might be entitled to apply for spousal support when the illness is discovered.

			Parties who wish to enter into a final consent order that provides for no spousal support should carefully draft the consent order to include the terms waiving or cancelling support. If spousal support is not being paid because the recipient is receiving other financial compensation instead of spousal support this should be spelled out in the court order. For example, if a spouse receives a larger portion of the property division (ie. more than 50%) in exchange for no spousal support, it is best for the court order to say that the recipient received the specific amount of lump sum spousal support as full and final satisfaction of their entitlement to spousal support, be it retroactive, ongoing, or future. See "Changing consent orders for support", below, for requests to vary such orders.

	===Changing an order allowing support===		===Changing an order allowing support===
Line 335:		Line 337:
	====Changing reviewable orders for support====		====Changing reviewable orders for support====

	''Reviewable orders'' for spousal support are orders that impose a duty to pay spousal support without a particular end date, but allow the order to be reassessed every now and then. A reviewable order would say something like this:		''Reviewable orders'' for spousal support are orders that impose a duty to pay spousal support with or without a particular end date to spousal support, but allow the order to be reassessed every now and then. A reviewable order would say something like this:

	<blockquote>"The Claimant shall pay spousal support to the Respondent in the amount of $______ per month, commencing on the first day of June 2019, and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter. This order may be reviewed on the application of either party on or after 1 June 2020."</blockquote>		<blockquote>"The Claimant shall pay spousal support to the Respondent in the amount of $______ per month, commencing on the first day of June 2019, and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter. This order may be reviewed on the application of either party on or after 1 June 2020."</blockquote>

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:39, 2 April 2025
Line 19:		Line 19:
	There is a difference between varying a final order made by a judge after a hearing or a trial and varying a final order made by consent (meaning both parties agreed to it):		There is a difference between varying a final order made by a judge after a hearing or a trial and varying a final order made by consent (meaning both parties agreed to it):

	In ''[~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/5427 Shackleton v. Shackleton]'', 1999 BCCA 704, the Court of Appeal addressed the limited circumstances in which a consent order may be varied or set aside:		In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/5427 Shackleton v. Shackleton]'', 1999 BCCA 704, the Court of Appeal addressed the limited circumstances in which a consent order may be varied or set aside:

	<blockquote>[12] A consent order is a formal expression of an agreement between the parties. Where parties intend to finally dispose of the issues between them, a consent		<blockquote>[12] A consent order is a formal expression of an agreement between the parties. Where parties intend to finally dispose of the issues between them, a consent
	order will operate as a final judgment: ''[~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/gc6td Campbell v. Campbell (1954)]'', [1955] 1 DLR 304 (BCSC). For the same reason that courts enforce settlement agreements, to provide certainty to parties settling disputes, consent orders are not easily altered. Subject to statutory provisions otherwise a consent order may be set aside or altered in substance only in circumstances which justify the same treatment to the underlying contract […]</blockquote>		order will operate as a final judgment: ''[https://canlii.ca/t/gc6td Campbell v. Campbell (1954)]'', [1955] 1 DLR 304 (BCSC). For the same reason that courts enforce settlement agreements, to provide certainty to parties settling disputes, consent orders are not easily altered. Subject to statutory provisions otherwise a consent order may be set aside or altered in substance only in circumstances which justify the same treatment to the underlying contract […]</blockquote>

	The threshold to change or set aside a contract is pretty high and the categories of grounds include fraud, undue influence, duress, coercion, fresh evidence that was not known at the time the original contract (or in this case consent order) was entered into, and abuse of process. For more information about changing consent orders for spousal support, see the section "Changing consent orders for spousal support" later in this chapter.		The threshold to change or set aside a contract is pretty high and the categories of grounds include fraud, undue influence, duress, coercion, fresh evidence that was not known at the time the original contract (or in this case consent order) was entered into, and abuse of process. For more information about changing consent orders for spousal support, see the section "Changing consent orders for spousal support" later in this chapter.
Line 62:		Line 62:
	Under [https://canlii.ca/t/7vbw#sec5 section 5] of the ''[[Divorce Act]]'', the BC Supreme Court can vary ''Divorce Act'' orders for parenting or contact made anywhere in Canada, as long as the person making the application, the ''applicant'', normally lives in British Columbia when the application is made or if both spouses agree to have the application heard in British Columbia. If the child has deeper roots and greater social ties in the other province, the court is likely to refuse to make the requested order and instead order that <span class="noglossary">a transfer of</span> the matter to be heard there.		Under [https://canlii.ca/t/7vbw#sec5 section 5] of the ''[[Divorce Act]]'', the BC Supreme Court can vary ''Divorce Act'' orders for parenting or contact made anywhere in Canada, as long as the person making the application, the ''applicant'', normally lives in British Columbia when the application is made or if both spouses agree to have the application heard in British Columbia. If the child has deeper roots and greater social ties in the other province, the court is likely to refuse to make the requested order and instead order that <span class="noglossary">a transfer of</span> the matter to be heard there.

	[~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/7vbw#sec17 Section 17] of the ''[[Divorce Act]]'' gives the court the authority to hear and decide variation applications. Under this section, the court may vary, cancel, or suspend support, parenting, or contact orders.		[https://canlii.ca/t/7vbw#sec17 Section 17] of the ''[[Divorce Act]]'' gives the court the authority to hear and decide variation applications. Under this section, the court may vary, cancel, or suspend support, parenting, or contact orders.

	====Changing parenting orders under the ''[[Divorce Act]]''====		====Changing parenting orders under the ''[[Divorce Act]]''====
Line 216:		Line 216:
	Before the [[Child Support Guidelines]] came into effect, an applicant had to show that there had been a serious and unforeseen change in circumstances before the court would hear an application to vary an order for child support. Now, an applicant must only show that there has been a change in income or the child's expenses to show that there has been a change in circumstances.		Before the [[Child Support Guidelines]] came into effect, an applicant had to show that there had been a serious and unforeseen change in circumstances before the court would hear an application to vary an order for child support. Now, an applicant must only show that there has been a change in income or the child's expenses to show that there has been a change in circumstances.

	[~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/80mh#sec14 Section 14] of the Guidelines defines a ''change in circumstances'' as follows:		[https://canlii.ca/t/80mh#sec14 Section 14] of the Guidelines defines a ''change in circumstances'' as follows:

	<blockquote><tt>For the purposes of subsection 17(4) of the Act, any one of the following constitutes a change of circumstances that gives rise to the making of a variation order in respect of a child support order:</tt></blockquote>		<blockquote><tt>For the purposes of subsection 17(4) of the Act, any one of the following constitutes a change of circumstances that gives rise to the making of a variation order in respect of a child support order:</tt></blockquote>
Line 254:		Line 254:
	<blockquote><tt>(c) evidence of a lack of financial disclosure by a party was discovered after the last order was made.</tt></blockquote>		<blockquote><tt>(c) evidence of a lack of financial disclosure by a party was discovered after the last order was made.</tt></blockquote>

	This all boils down to the idea that the court can change an order for child support if there has been a change of circumstances, as defined by [~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/80mh#sec14 section 14] of the [[Child Support Guidelines]] (reproduced above), since the last order, or if new evidence has been discovered since the order was made.		This all boils down to the idea that the court can change an order for child support if there has been a change of circumstances, as defined by [https://canlii.ca/t/80mh#sec14 section 14] of the [[Child Support Guidelines]] (reproduced above), since the last order, or if new evidence has been discovered since the order was made.

	====Financial Statements====		====Financial Statements====
Line 292:		Line 292:
	It used to be the case that a claim for spousal support that was dismissed in a final judgment was permanently dismissed, such that any future application for support could not proceed, no matter how things might have changed for the person in financial need.		It used to be the case that a claim for spousal support that was dismissed in a final judgment was permanently dismissed, such that any future application for support could not proceed, no matter how things might have changed for the person in financial need.

	A 2003 judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, ''[~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/5cdj Gill-Sager v. Sager]'', 2003 BCCA 46, called into question just how ''final'' final orders about spousal support should be. In that case, the court issued a strong caution to trial judges against permanently dismissing a spouse's claim for support. Subsequent cases have interpreted this decision to mean that spousal support claims should never be permanently dismissed, only adjourned, so that it will always be open to a spouse to apply for spousal support later on. In practice this means that final orders should not say that a claim for support is ''dismissed'' but is only ''adjourned generally''; in other words, they should say that the issue is not decided.		A 2003 judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, ''[https://canlii.ca/t/5cdj Gill-Sager v. Sager]'', 2003 BCCA 46, called into question just how ''final'' final orders about spousal support should be. In that case, the court issued a strong caution to trial judges against permanently dismissing a spouse's claim for support. Subsequent cases have interpreted this decision to mean that spousal support claims should never be permanently dismissed, only adjourned, so that it will always be open to a spouse to apply for spousal support later on. In practice this means that final orders should not say that a claim for support is ''dismissed'' but is only ''adjourned generally''; in other words, they should say that the issue is not decided.

	A party who seeks spousal support after a judgment dismissing support must be able to establish a significant change in their financial circumstances, such that if the change were known of at the time of trial, the judge would have made a different decision. For example, a party who develops a serious, disabling illness following trial — a trial held while the party was in perfect health — and can no longer hold a job, might be entitled to apply for spousal support when the illness is discovered.		A party who seeks spousal support after a judgment dismissing support must be able to establish a significant change in their financial circumstances, such that if the change were known of at the time of trial, the judge would have made a different decision. For example, a party who develops a serious, disabling illness following trial — a trial held while the party was in perfect health — and can no longer hold a job, might be entitled to apply for spousal support when the illness is discovered.
Line 298:		Line 298:
	===Changing an order allowing support===		===Changing an order allowing support===

	When a party seeks to vary a final order for spousal support made under the ''[[Divorce Act]]'', they must show that there has been a ''material change in circumstances'' affecting one or both of the parties. A material change is a significant change. In the 1996 case of ''[~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/1f0dj Tyler v. Tyler]'', 1996 CanLII 1190 (BCCA), the Court of Appeal said that a material change is one that is "substantial, unforeseen and of a continuing nature." In the 1995 case of ''[~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/1frh3 G. (L.) v. B. (G.)]'', [1995] 3 SCR 370, the Supreme Court of Canada said that a material change is one that, if known at the time of the original order, would have resulted in a different order being made. A court hearing a variation application will treat the original order as correct and limit its role to determining whether the change is sufficient to justify a variation.		When a party seeks to vary a final order for spousal support made under the ''[[Divorce Act]]'', they must show that there has been a ''material change in circumstances'' affecting one or both of the parties. A material change is a significant change. In the 1996 case of ''[https://canlii.ca/t/1f0dj Tyler v. Tyler]'', 1996 CanLII 1190 (BCCA), the Court of Appeal said that a material change is one that is "substantial, unforeseen and of a continuing nature." In the 1995 case of ''[https://canlii.ca/t/1frh3 G. (L.) v. B. (G.)]'', [1995] 3 SCR 370, the Supreme Court of Canada said that a material change is one that, if known at the time of the original order, would have resulted in a different order being made. A court hearing a variation application will treat the original order as correct and limit its role to determining whether the change is sufficient to justify a variation.

	[~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/7vbw#sec17 Section 17(4.1)] of the ''[[Divorce Act]]'' says this:		[https://canlii.ca/t/7vbw#sec17 Section 17(4.1)] of the ''[[Divorce Act]]'' says this:

	<blockquote><tt>(4.1) Before the court makes a variation order in respect of a spousal support order, the court shall satisfy itself that a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse has occurred since the making of the spousal support order or the last variation order made in respect of that order, and, in making the variation order, the court shall take that change into consideration.</tt></blockquote>		<blockquote><tt>(4.1) Before the court makes a variation order in respect of a spousal support order, the court shall satisfy itself that a change in the condition, means, needs or other circumstances of either former spouse has occurred since the making of the spousal support order or the last variation order made in respect of that order, and, in making the variation order, the court shall take that change into consideration.</tt></blockquote>
Line 351:		Line 351:
	A ''consent order'' is an order that the parties agree the court should make. As such, consent orders have a different status than orders that were argued about. There is an assumption that the parties to a consent order knew what they were doing when they agreed to the order, had a reasonable knowledge of their circumstances at the time, and could reasonably foresee how their circumstances might change in the future.		A ''consent order'' is an order that the parties agree the court should make. As such, consent orders have a different status than orders that were argued about. There is an assumption that the parties to a consent order knew what they were doing when they agreed to the order, had a reasonable knowledge of their circumstances at the time, and could reasonably foresee how their circumstances might change in the future.

	The test for changing consent orders for spousal support used to be the ''material change'' test, described above. The question was "has there been a material change in the means and needs of either spouse that is connected to the marriage, and which would have resulted in a different order being made had the change had been known of at the time of the original order?" In the 2003 case of ''[~~http~~://canlii.ca/t/1g5lh Miglin v. Miglin]'', [2003] 1 SCR 303, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the material change test should no longer apply to changing agreements for support and described a three-step test to be used when deciding whether a change is warranted:		The test for changing consent orders for spousal support used to be the ''material change'' test, described above. The question was "has there been a material change in the means and needs of either spouse that is connected to the marriage, and which would have resulted in a different order being made had the change had been known of at the time of the original order?" In the 2003 case of ''[https://canlii.ca/t/1g5lh Miglin v. Miglin]'', [2003] 1 SCR 303, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that the material change test should no longer apply to changing agreements for support and described a three-step test to be used when deciding whether a change is warranted:

	#Was the agreement negotiated and entered into fairly? (i.e. was there an equality of bargaining power?)		#Was the agreement negotiated and entered into fairly? (i.e. was there an equality of bargaining power?)