After The trial

[sufferer]

My Ex was smashed in the trial and agreed to pay approx 10000 for the cost too.Intially he kept on threating for the appeal but finallly did nothing.
Now he is saying that he will take me to the court again.CAn he do that.After 6 years of litigation and him being beaten always will the court entertain his foolishness again.

Till now I was on legal aid but now I am in school and I don't have time and energy to deal with him again even if i qualify for the legal aid

[standing on the sidelines]

what are his grounds for taking you to court?

[hadenough]

Did he actually pay the Costs he was ordered to pay? Much like his threat to "appeal" - this likely is more of the same.. Hot Air.

[Tayken]

My Ex was smashed in the trial and agreed to pay approx 10000 for the cost too.Intially he kept on threating for the appeal but finallly did nothing.
Now he is saying that he will take me to the court again.CAn he do that.After 6 years of litigation and him being beaten always will the court entertain his foolishness again.

Till now I was on legal aid but now I am in school and I don't have time and energy to deal with him again even if i qualify for the legal aid

Only on a "material change in circumstance" and as the party bringing forward the Application the other parent would have to establish on a prima facia basis that it has occurred which is no small task to pull off.

Supreme Court: defining “material change in circumstances" | By Toronto Family Lawyer

The minority position, however, was most captivating, in my opinion. In his reasoning, Justice Cromwell advised as follows:

“When, as here, parties have reached a comprehensive, final separation agreement and its provisions are incorporated into a court order, those provisions must be given considerable weight in a subsequent variation application in relation to spousal support.”

In other words, Justice Cromwell is expressing an agreement reached on consent between two people with the requisite capacity should be respected as much as possible and that the threshold for what constitutes a material change is actually quite high.

The two-step test used to establish materiality, developed in the case of Miglin v. Miglin, is as follows: the change must be one that (1) relates to something that was not either expressly addressed by the parties in the agreement or that cannot be taken as having been in their contemplation; and (2) results in the support provision, considered in the context of the entire agreement, no longer being in substantial compliance with the objectives of the Act as a whole. The objectives of the Act are finality, certainty, and autonomy.

Check out for what constitutes a "material change in circumstance" and how the test is applied in accordance with case law. This case law (38 instances of quotes in CanLII) is very standard stuff these days:

Miglin v. Miglin, 2001 CanLII 8525 (ON CA)

Date: 2001-04-26
Docket: c33432
Parallel citations: 53 OR (3d) 641; 198 DLR (4th) 385; 16 RFL (5th) 185; 144 OAC 155
URL: CanLII - 2001 CanLII 8525 (ON CA)
Citation: Miglin v. Miglin, 2001 CanLII 8525 (ON CA)

So basically, to answer your question... The other parent can file an Application on a material change. You have to Respond but, the court will apply the test from Miglin v. Miglin and subsequent case law that has evolved and if the Application is frivolous more costs will be awarded against the other parent.

In fact, if brought forward again, your request to court should be a stay of all motions without leave of the court and identification of the other parent as a vexatious litigant.

Good Luck!
Tayken