Pursuant to section 17(4) of the Divorce Act and section 14(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, a court may vary a child support order whenever the amount of child support was determined in accordance with the applicable provincial or territorial table and any change has occurred that would result in a different child support order.60Such a change will occur when the obligor’s annual income and consequential capacity to pay child support has increased61or has deteriorated for reasons beyond his or her control.62Any change that triggers a different order, whether it is a change in form, in substance, or in dollar amounts, is sufficient justification for a variation application.63The jurisdiction to vary an order for child support based on a provincial or territorial table is not confined to circumstances where the obligor’s income has increased or decreased. For example, a complementary provision could be included with respect to newly encountered special or extraordinary expenses, or a reconstitution of either household might justify a claim of undue hardship under sections 10(1) and 10(3) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, or the residence of the obligor might change so as to trigger the application of a different provincial or ter-
ritorial table under section 3(3)(a) of the Guidelines, or the accumulation of arrears might warrant the variation of an order for periodic support into an order for lump sum support in accordance with section 11 of the Guidelines. Section 14(a) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines deems that there is a change in circumstances for the purposes of s. 17(4) of the Divorce Act if section 9 of the Guidelines is triggered.64A child’s attainment of the provincial age of majority and attendance at an out-of-town university constitute changes of circumstances under section 14(a) of the Guidelines such as to warrant variation of an existing child support order that provides for the applicable table amount of child support to be paid.65
 Shelley v. Russell, 2012 ONSC 920.
 Lee v. Chung, 2011 BCSC 404; Levesque v. Meade, 2010 NBQB 270; A.D.B.v. S.A.M.,  N.S.J. No. 252 (S.C.); V.C. v. J.D.B., 2009 NSSC 25; Khoee-Solomonescu v. Solomonescu,  O.J. No. 743 (Div. Ct.).
 A.D.B.v. S.A.M., ibid.; Guillet v. Guillet,  S.J. No. 266 (Q.B.).
 Blais v. Blais,  S.J. No. 468 (S.C.).
 Kolada v. Kolada,  A.J. No. 342 (Q.B.).
 Wood v. Boere, 2012...