Does the court have jurisdiction to make interim variation of a final order?

Like Del Frate J., Mitrow J. prefers the principle that the court does have jurisdiction to make interim variation of a final order. With respect to the test to be applied, he referred to Hayes v. Hayes, In that case, Spies J. had this to say, at paragraph 38: …An interim variation of the underlying support order is the most drastic intervention a court could make pending a final hearing of a motion to change. The cases are not clear on what is required to show that continuation of the order would be “incongruous and absurd.” The plain meaning of these terms would suggest the order is inappropriate, unreasonable or ridiculous.