==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 an action a court proceeding and cannot can't be changed. This rule applies whether the order is for requires the dismissal payment of spousal support or rejects a party's claim for spousal support or for the payment of spousal support.
===Changing an Order Refusing Support===
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. 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 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 final order should not say that 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 claim job, might be entitled to apply for spousal support when the illness is dismissed but is only adjourned generallydiscovered.
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 partiesSTOPPED. 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.must add FLA test
Section 17 of the Divorce Act provides, in part, as follows: