Every family law lawyer has a case that stays with them.
In March 2026, Mr. Kang stood in the Supreme Court of British Columbia as counsel for a father who refused to be erased from his daughter’s life. His client had been through what the court itself described as “an exhausting litigation ordeal” with multiple parenting orders, a full-day hearing before a different justice who ordered parenting time, and an order from Associate Judge Vos on December 31, 2025, that specifically preserved the father’s parenting time after the respondent relocated and yet, despite all of that, the parenting time was being denied, week after week after week.
The Respondent had obtained a without-notice protection order in Provincial Court without disclosing the existing parenting orders. The court noted she “ticked a box” on the form and, when asked directly by the Provincial Court Judge, did not reveal those orders existed. That protection order was subsequently set aside. Allegations were made. Investigations followed. Both the MCFD and the RCMP investigated and closed their files. Neither organization voiced concerns. Neither recommended a safety plan and still, the parenting time was being withheld.
The evidence before the court was stark. Associate Judge Nielsen put it bluntly:
“My concern is that the child is being weaponized by the respondent in order to thwart the claimant’s parenting time.”
Mr. Kang brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent had breached the December 31, 2025 order, a declaration under s. 61 of the Family Law Act that parenting time had been wrongfully denied on multiple specified dates, an order for immediate compliance, compensatory parenting time, a $5,000 fine, and special costs.
The court granted virtually everything. Associate Judge Nielsen declared the breach, found the wrongful denial of parenting time, ordered immediate compliance, and awarded compensatory parenting time. He levied a fine of $3,000, payable forthwith to Mr. Kang’s client, and most critically, he awarded special costs.
Special costs are not routine. They are reserved for conduct the court characterizes as “reprehensible.” A term that encompasses behaviour that is scandalous and outrageous. The test, as outlined in Hu v. Dickson, 2015 BCSC 218, considers factors such as whether a party has acted with an improper motive, whether a party has misled the court, and whether there has been ongoing disobedience of prior court orders. Associate Judge Nielsen found all three were present here: the improper motive of thwarting parenting time, misleading the Provincial Court during the protection order application, and the ongoing disobedience of multiple prior orders. His conclusion was unequivocal: “the cumulative effect of the respondent’s behaviour can be characterized as reprehensible, scandalous and outrageous.”
As Justice Hardwick stated in L.C.S. v. R.W.S., 2024 BCSC 1457, “compliance cannot be viewed as optional.” And as the court held in E.F.K. v. R.J., 2024 BCSC 1112, “court orders are not mere recommendations.” Sections 61 and 62 of the Family Law Act provide real enforcement tools, and when the conduct warrants it, the court will not hesitate to impose financial consequences and mark its disapproval through an award of special costs.
Cases like this one carry a weight that is difficult to describe. Behind every application is a parent who has been counting the days since they last held their child. But when the court speaks clearly and when it declares that orders will be enforced and that a parent’s role in their child’s life will be protected, that weight lifts. For Mr. Kang, that moment made every hour of preparation worth it.