Law360 Canada ( January 28, 2026, 10:04 AM EST) -- Appeal by respondent and cross-appeal by petitioner of trial judge’s variation of the child support order. The parties were married for nine years and separated in 2008. A final order set child support based on the respondent’s imputed income of $40,000 without requiring life insurance to secure his obligation. The petitioner sought to vary the order, including adding a life-insurance requirement. After multiple case conferences, most variation requests were struck, leaving only updated income and s. 7 expenses for trial. At trial, the judge retroactively increased the respondent’s income to $100,000, adjusted s. 7 expenses, and ordered him to obtain a $150,000 life-insurance policy. Following this decision, the respondent challenged the retroactive imputation of his income, the insurance policy, and the s. 7 expenses. The judge maintained her initial order relating to the policy, finding she had jurisdiction to make the order, but decreased the respondent’s income to $70,000. The respondent’s appeal questioned whether the judge had jurisdiction to make the insurance policy order, and if so whether the judge erred in ordering him to obtain the policy in the absence of sufficient evidence. The petitioner’s cross-appeal related to the decrease in the respondent’s income to $70,000, arguing that the judge erred in revisiting that issue and the process was unfair. She also challenged some of the judge’s determination of her entitlement to extraordinary s. 7 expenses....