Difference between revisions of "Changing Orders in Family Matters"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 29: Line 29:


It's up to the applicant to show that there has been a change in the "condition, means, needs or other circumstances of the child" since the last order was made.  In its 2011 decision of P.(L.M.) v. S.(L.), 2011 SCC 64, the Supreme Court of Canada articulated that:  
It's up to the applicant to show that there has been a change in the "condition, means, needs or other circumstances of the child" since the last order was made.  In its 2011 decision of P.(L.M.) v. S.(L.), 2011 SCC 64, the Supreme Court of Canada articulated that:  
- the change must be one that if known at the time of the initial order would have resulted in different terms; and
*the change must be one that if known at the time of the initial order would have resulted in different terms; and
- the test is based not on what one party knew or reasonably foresaw, but rather on what the parties actually contemplated at the time the original order was made.
*the test is based not on what one party knew or reasonably foresaw, but rather on what the parties actually contemplated at the time the original order was made.




Navigation menu