Anonymous

Difference between revisions of "Changing Orders in Family Matters"

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Line 243: Line 243:
==Spousal Support==
==Spousal Support==


A final order for spousal support is an order made following the trial of a court proceeding or made by the consent of the parties as a settlement of the proceeding. Changing an order is called ''varying'' an order.


A final order for spousal support is an order made following the trial of an action or made by the agreement of the parties as a settlement of the action. Changing an order is called "varying" an order.
In general, a final order is just that, final. Without an appeal, the final order represents the end of a court proceeding and can't be changed. This rule applies whether the order requires the payment of spousal support or rejects a party's claim for spousal support.
 
In general, a final order is just that, final. Without an appeal, the final order represents the end of an action and cannot be changed. This rule applies whether the order is for the dismissal of a party's claim for spousal support or for the payment of spousal support.


===Changing an Order Refusing Support===
===Changing an Order Refusing Support===
Line 252: Line 251:
It used to be the case that a claim for spousal support which 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 someone in financial need.
It used to be the case that a claim for spousal support which 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 someone in financial need.


A 2002 case of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, Gill-Sager v. Sager, has called into question just how "final" final orders about spousal support should be. In this 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.
A 2002 case of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, ''Gill-Sager v. Sager'', has called into question just how "final" final orders about spousal support should be. In this 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 that it is not decided.


In practice this means that a final order should not say that a claim for support is dismissed but is only adjourned generally.
A party who seeks spousal support after a judgment dismissing support must be able to establish a significant change in his or her 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 his or her 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 debilitating 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.
===Changing an Order Allowing Support===


===Changing an Order Granting Support===
When a party seeks to vary a final order for spousal support made under the ''Divorce Act'', he or she 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 ''T. (T.L.A.) v. T. (W.W.)'', the Court of Appeal said that a material change is one which is "substantial, unforeseen and of a continuing nature." In the 1995 case of ''G. (L.) v. B. (G.)'', the Supreme Court of Canada said that a material change is one which, if known at the time of the original order, would have resulted in a different order being made.


When a party seeks to vary a final order for spousal support, he or she 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 T. (T.L.A.) v. T. (W.W.), the Court of Appeal said that a material change is one which is "substantial, unforeseen and of a continuing nature." In the 1995 case of G. (L.) v. B. (G.), the Supreme Court of Canada said that a material change is one which, if known at the time of the original order, would have resulted in a different order being made.
STOPPED...must add FLA test


Section 17 of the Divorce Act provides, in part, as follows:
Section 17 of the Divorce Act provides, in part, as follows:
Anonymous user