A Motion to Change in Ontario is the procedure used in family court to vary a final order or a written separation agreement that has been filed with the court. This article explains the Form 15 process, the “material change in circumstances” test that governs whether the court will reopen child support, decision-making responsibility, or parenting time, and how Ontario courts have applied that test in recent cases.
What is a Motion to Change in Ontario (Form 15)?
A Motion to Change is the formal court process to vary an existing final order or a separation agreement. It is started using Form 15: Motion to Change, supported by Form 15A: Change Information Form and, where support is in issue, a sworn Form 13 or Form 13.1 Financial Statement
Download court forms here: https://ontariocourtforms.on.ca/en/family-law-rules-forms/
A Motion to Change is not an appeal. The court will not revisit whether the original order was correct. It will only decide whether something has changed since the order was made that justifies a different result going forward.
The governing rules are Rule 15 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (procedure); section 17 of the Divorce Act (variations of orders made under the Divorce Act); and section 37 of the Family Law Act and section 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act (variations of orders made under Ontario legislation).
When Can a Final Order or Separation Agreement Be Changed?
A final order or separation agreement can only be varied if the moving party first establishes a material change in circumstances. This threshold applies to both parenting issues (decision-making responsibility, parenting time, contact) and support (child support, section 7 expenses, spousal support).
The threshold is strict. As the Court of Appeal confirmed in Brown v. Lloyd, 2014 ONSC 300, the change must have altered the child’s needs, or the parents’ ability to meet those needs, in a fundamental way. Absent that finding, the variation inquiry can go no further.
The “Material Change in Circumstances” Test — In Plain Language
The leading authority is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Gordon v. Goertz, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27. To establish a material change, you must prove three things:
(a) There has been a change in the condition, means, needs, or circumstances of the child, or the ability of a parent to meet those needs;
(b) The change materially affects the child (or, for support, materially affects the parties’ financial picture); and
(c) The change was not foreseen, or could not reasonably have been contemplated, by the judge or parties when the original order or agreement was made.
The Supreme Court added a further qualifier in L.M.P. v. L.S., 2011 SCC 64: the change must be substantial (i.e. “material”) and continuing (i.e. not a temporary set of circumstances). Together, if known at the time, would likely have produced a different order.
In plain language: small, short-lived, or expected changes do not qualify. The court is looking for something significant, lasting, and unexpected enough that the original arrangement no longer fits.
The same test applies whether you proceed under the Divorce Act or Ontario legislation. Although Gordon v. Goertz was decided under the Divorce Act, Ontario courts apply the identical three-part test to parenting variations brought under section 29 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. In Brown v. Lloyd, 2014 ONSC 300, the court confirmed that section 29 bars a court from varying an Ontario custody or access order unless there has been a material change in circumstances affecting the best interests of the child, and that the Gordon framework governs that inquiry. The court also reaffirmed a critical procedural point: jurisdiction to vary depends on an explicit finding of a material change, and if the moving party fails to meet that threshold, the inquiry can go no further, the court never reaches the best-interests analysis.
A Slightly Lower Bar for Support Cases
The Court of Appeal in Pustai v. Pustai, 2018 ONCA 785, confirmed that the threshold for varying support is less demanding than for varying parenting, but it is still a significant one. A minor or temporary income fluctuation will not be enough.
Examples Where Ontario Courts Have Found a Material Change
A bona fide career change driven by the child’s needs. In Stevenson v. Hargreaves, 2022 ONSC 5971, the recipient parent left dental assisting (because the early start times made school drop-off and pick-up impossible) and enrolled in a pharmacy assistant program. The court found this was a genuine, child-focused change in employment circumstances and adjusted child support accordingly, while declining to impute a higher income.
A relocation tied to a better employment opportunity. In Bah v. Diallo, 2025 ONSC 1573, the court found that the mother’s acceptance of a higher-paying, in-person position in Winnipeg, combined with a lower cost of living, was a material change justifying a temporary relocation of the children under section 16.93 of the Divorce Act.
New, ongoing financial support from a third party. In Lakkineni v. Pilli, 2025 ONSC 2896, the court treated regular and substantial gifts from the mother’s family as imputed income, because they entirely supported (rather than merely supplemented) her lifestyle. This justified a variation of the support framework.
A pattern of voluntary underemployment with capacity to earn more. Under section 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and Drygala v. Pauli, 2002 CanLII 41868, there is no need to prove bad faith. If a payor is intentionally earning less than they could, the court may impute income, and the underlying change in income can support a variation.
A significant, continuing change in either party’s income, undue hardship, a change in the number of children entitled to support, a material change in section 7 expenses, or a change in the parenting schedule that affects the Guidelines calculation. These categories are typically captured in well-drafted separation agreements as triggers for variation.
Examples Where Ontario Courts Have Declined to Find a Material Change
Foreseeable or contemplated changes. If the original order or separation agreement already anticipated the change (for example, a child moving from elementary to high school, or a pre-arranged parenting transition at a specific age), the change is not material: L.M.P. v. L.S., 2011 SCC 64.
Minor or temporary income fluctuations. A short-term dip or bump in earnings that is not substantial and continuing will not meet the threshold. Courts expect parties to absorb normal year-over-year variability, especially where the order or agreement already builds in an annual reconciliation mechanism based on line 15000 income.
Dissatisfaction with the existing arrangement. As the Court of Appeal made clear in Persaud v. Garcia-Persaud, 2009 ONCA 782, there is no presumption in favour of maintaining the status quo once a material change is shown, but conversely, simply preferring a different arrangement, without a real change, is not enough to reopen the file.
Changes already underway when the order was made. In Stevenson v. Hargreaves, 2022 ONSC 5971, the applicant’s request to vary the decision-making responsibility component was refused because the parenting dynamic he complained of was already present, and known, at the time of the original order. Meaning it could not satisfy the third branch of the Gordon v. Goertz test.
Conduct or lifestyle complaints unconnected to the child’s needs. The test is about whether the child’s situation, or the parents’ ability to meet the child’s needs, has fundamentally changed, not about settling scores between the parties.
A bundle of ordinary life changes that did not fundamentally alter the child’s needs. In Brown v. Lloyd, 2014 ONSC 300, the father sought equal time, pointing to the child getting older, the mother’s remarriage, the birth of two half-siblings, a move, and the child’s learning-disability diagnosis. The court dismissed the motion: change alone is not enough, and none of these, individually or together, had altered the child’s needs or either parent’s ability to meet them in a fundamental way. The child was thriving under the existing schedule, the father’s evidence amounted to “theories,” and a child simply growing older and more mature does not, on its own, meet the threshold.
How a Form 15 Motion to Change Works (Step by Step)
Step 1: Prepare and serve the motion materials. Complete Form 15 (Motion to Change), Form 15A (Change Information Form), and, where support is in issue, Form 13 (Financial Statement). Attach a copy of the order or separation agreement you want to change, and include supporting affidavit evidence of the change in circumstances. The Motion to Change must be file and issued by the Court.
Step 2: Serve the other party in accordance with Rule 6 of the Family Law Rules. Service is by special service (delivering the documents in-person to the other party’s last known address or to their lawyer’s office).
Step 3: File proof of service at the court office that issued the original order.
Step 4: Wait for the responding party. The responding party may consent — the parties file Form 15C (Consent Motion to Change Child Support) or a consent order for parenting issues, and no hearing is needed. Alternatively, they may respond by filing Form 15B (Response to Motion to Change) within 30 days (60 days if served outside Canada or the United States), with any supporting affidavits and financial disclosure. If they do nothing, the moving party may proceed on an uncontested basis.
Step 5: Attend a case conference. The court will not schedule a contested motion or trial until a case conference has been held (Rule 17). The case conference is the first real opportunity to narrow issues, exchange disclosure, and explore settlement.
Step 6: Move through to hearing. If no settlement, the matter moves through settlement conference, trial management conference, and ultimately a hearing or trial where the court applies the two-stage analysis: first, is there a material change, and if so, what is in the best interests of the child or what is the correct support amount on the new facts.
Special Note: Changing a Separation Agreement
A separation agreement filed with the court under section 35 of the Family Law Act is enforceable as if it were a court order, and the support and parenting provisions can be varied using the Motion to Change procedure.
Most well-drafted Ontario separation agreements expressly set out what will be treated as a material change. Common triggers include a material change in either party’s financial position; a change causing undue hardship; a change in the number of children entitled to support; a material change in the children’s section 7 expenses; a change in the parenting schedule that affects the Guidelines calculation; a child reaching the age of majority; or a change in the children’s need for support.
Spousal support clauses often include a release and a statement that the agreement is intended to be “final and non-variable.” Such clauses do not entirely oust the court’s jurisdiction, but they are a significant factor in the analysis under section 17 of the Divorce Act and the Miglin framework.
Practical Tips Before You File
Gather your evidence first. The court will want documentary proof: tax returns, notices of assessment, pay stubs, medical reports, school records, or proof of relocation. A bald assertion will not get you past the threshold stage.
Disclose early and fully. Under Rule 13 and the Family Law Rules generally, financial disclosure is mandatory where support is in issue. Incomplete disclosure invites cost consequences and, in serious cases, pleadings being struck under Rule 1(8).
Consider settlement first. A negotiated change documented in a consent order or amending agreement is faster, cheaper, and less stressful than a contested motion.
Get legal advice. The material change test sounds simple but is heavily case-specific. A short consultation can tell you whether your facts realistically meet the threshold before you commit to litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long does a Motion to Change take in Ontario?
Uncontested or consent matters can be resolved within weeks. Contested matters typically take a year or more from filing to final order, depending on the court location and the complexity of the issues.
Can I change child support retroactively?
Sometimes. The Supreme Court in D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37, set out the factors a court will weigh, including the reason for the delay, the conduct of the payor parent, the circumstances of the child, and any hardship a retroactive order would cause. The court typically will not go back more than three years from the date effective notice was given to the payor.
Do I need a lawyer to bring a Form 15 Motion to Change?
No, but the threshold test, the disclosure obligations, and the cost consequences of an unsuccessful motion are significant. Legal advice, even on a limited-scope basis, is strongly recommended.
What if the other party will not provide financial disclosure?
Rule 13 and Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules give the court broad powers to compel disclosure, draw adverse inferences, impute income, strike pleadings, and award costs. Non-disclosure is one of the most heavily-sanctioned conduct issues in Ontario family law.
Get Help With Your Motion to Change
Chronicle Law P.C. is a boutique Ontario family law firm based in Mississauga, serving clients across the Greater Toronto Area, including Brampton, Oakville, and Toronto. If you are considering a Motion to Change, or you have been served with one, we can help you assess whether the material change threshold is met, prepare the Form 15 package, and represent you through case conferences, motions, and trial. Visit chroniclelaw.com or contact our office to book a consultation at 289-270-9996 or by email at info@chroniclelaw.com.
This article is general legal information about Ontario family law and is not legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. Consult a lawyer about your specific situation.