Family law litigation in British Columbia is not only about resolving disputes. It is also about ensuring that the court process is not misused as a tool for intimidation or abuse. A recent decision highlights how courts are willing to take a strong stance where family violence intersects with litigation conduct.
Sumit Ahuja recently obtained a favourable decision for a client in which the opposing party’s application for a declaration of a marriage-like relationship was dismissed. Following that success, the Court permitted submissions on costs, and special costs were awarded in favour of the client.
This decision reinforces an important principle in family law. Where a party engages in misconduct, particularly where it involves coercion, intimidation, or family violence, the Court has the discretion to impose special costs as a form of sanction.
What Are Special Costs in British Columbia
Special costs are awarded in exceptional circumstances. Unlike ordinary costs, which provide partial indemnity, special costs are intended to fully compensate a party and to express the Court’s disapproval of serious misconduct.
Courts in British Columbia may award special costs where a party’s conduct is found to be reprehensible. This includes behaviour that is abusive, misleading, or an improper use of the legal process.
Key Findings from the Decision
The Court carefully reviewed the background of the dispute and the conduct of the claimant. The following excerpts from the decision highlight the Court’s reasoning:
[3] This summary trial was precipitated by the claimant’s claim for a declaration that the parties were spouses as defined by the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 [FLA] and that, as such, he was entitled to a share of what he claimed to be family assets, including a property previously owned by the respondent. That claim arose after the respondent had made a claim against the claimant for child support for twins born of the relationship.
[4] Details and particulars of the relationship and the actions of the parties are recited in my previous decision and will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that I found that the claim made by the claimant was utterly without merit. It was then and remains my view, that his claim was nothing more than a continuation of the claimant’s behaviour of intimidation, coercion and vile family and intimate partner violence, as practiced throughout the short and tumultuous relationship between the claimant and respondent. In this regard, see M.R.P. v. S.R.P., 2014 BCSC 51 and L.D.B. v. A.N.H., 2023 BCCA 480. I find the claim was made in an attempt to coerce the respondent into abandoning her legitimate claim for child support.
[5] I find that the claimant’s behaviour throughout this litigation and in the circumstances giving rise to this proceeding has been reprehensible and deserving of rebuke. In such situations, the court can, and in my view, should, use costs to punish the offending party and to express the court’s disapproval of such behaviour:
Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2012 BCSC 237 at para. 9; McIntyre v. McIntyre, 2018 BCSC 472 at paras. 5–7. The court process is available to address legitimate disputes between parties. It is not, and cannot be, available simply to intimidate and provide a new avenue of violence and abuse against former intimate partners and/or children. It must be the courts’ duty to stand as gatekeepers regarding such claims. The court must be willing to order special costs when a party attempts to use the courts as a tool of family violence: Kim v. Hong, 2013 BCSC 2248 at para. 28.
Misuse of the Court Process as Family Violence
The Court made it clear that the legal system cannot be used as a means of continuing family violence. Litigation must serve a legitimate purpose, not operate as a tool to intimidate or pressure a former partner.
The decision reinforces that courts must act as gatekeepers. Where a party attempts to weaponize the legal system, the Court has both the authority and the responsibility to respond appropriately.
Why This Decision Matters
This decision is significant for individuals involved in family law disputes in British Columbia.
It confirms that litigation abuse can be recognized as a form of family violence. It also demonstrates that courts are prepared to impose meaningful financial consequences where a party engages in coercive or abusive conduct.
For individuals facing similar circumstances, this case provides reassurance that the legal system can respond effectively and provide protection.
Case Reference
R.A.K. v. V.J.S., 2026 BCSC 656
Final Thoughts
Family law proceedings should be used to resolve genuine disputes, not to perpetuate harm. This decision highlights the Court’s willingness to intervene where litigation is used as a tool of intimidation or control.
If you are dealing with a high conflict family law matter or believe the court process is being misused against you, seeking legal advice is critical. ALMA Law provides strategic and experienced representation to protect clients and ensure that the legal process is used appropriately and effectively.