Vancouver conduct order lawyers help manage a family action to a prompt and efficient conclusion to a family file. Vancouver conduct order lawyers accomplish this by using conduct orders in both the Supreme Court and Provincial family Court that include:
- requiring parties to attend counselling,
- imposing restrictions on how spouses communicate with each other
- requiring that a spouse post a bond to secure his or her good behaviour.
- making a draconian order striking or dismissing all or part of a claim,
- ordering prohibitions on a party from bringing further applications without permission from the court,
- ordering that all further applications to be heard by the same judge.
- making a spouse pay the other party’s expenses for enforcing an order,
- ordering a recalcitrant spouse to pay a fine of up to $5,000.
- and finally permitting the court to jail a spouse
Vancouver Conduct Order Lawyers 7 Offices Across Western Canada
MacLean Family Law Vancouver Conduct Order Lawyers are part of a team that is a multiple winner of Vancouver’s Top Family Firm and part of Western Canada’s largest family law firm with 5 offices in BC in Vancouver, Richmond, Kelowna, Surrey and Fort St John, offices in Calgary and finally in Winnipeg. Call us toll free at 1-877-602-9900 to start a plan to a successful resolution of your family law case.
Vancouver Conduct Order Lawyers Explain Restriction On Further Court Applications
Vancouver conduct order lawyers note the recent case of ET v ST where a father refused to give up on bringing applications for the same relief over and over. The results of this time wasting applications mirrored the main case supporting this recent decision. Williams was a case where the husband’s results were dismal and the extra costs to his ex spouse financially destructive. Worse still- like the actions in Williams where a father alienated his children from him and damaged his relationship with his children -in this case the judge in ET v ST found the father had improperly attempted to bully his family with repeated and frivilous applications.
Conduct Order
[97] The claimant contends that an order preventing the respondent from bringing further applications without first obtaining leave of the court is necessary to eliminate the “barrage of applications he has subjected her to over the years.” I agree. There is no doubt in my mind that the respondent has knowingly brought repeated applications to court essentially seeking the same relief. He is a determined individual and not deterred when an application of his is denied. All he does is file a new application and try again.
[98] In Williams v. Williams, 2015 BCSC 928, Mr. Justice Punnett reviewed the law related to litigants who bring repeated applications for the same relief. The observations at paragraphs 148 to 151 of Justice Punnett are apposite to the present case:
[148] The defendant’s conduct has been time consuming and expensive for the plaintiff who can ill afford such costs. It has had the additional effect of alienating him from his children, stressing their mother and likely stressed them as well given their living arrangements. Many of the applications brought by the plaintiff were simply to obtain financial disclosure that the defendant should have voluntarily disclosed.
[149] The defendant, by his repeated applications, has shown an unwillingness to accept his obligation to support his children and an unwillingness to accept court orders.
[150] I am of the opinion, as was noted in Dawson, that the test under s. 221 is “less stringent” than that for a vexatious litigant under s. 18 of the Supreme Court Act. The language used broadens the factors considered under s. 18 as it recognizes that family litigation has unique characteristics and that litigation may have wider and more significant effects that should be considered if the goal of resolution of family conflict is to be achieved. In the context of family litigation s. 221 recognizes the need for the courts to have access to the less stringent remedy provided for given the negative financial and social costs that family litigation may cause. That impact affects the parties and their children both financially and emotionally and where the behaviour of one or both parties meets the threshold in s. 221 such orders may be made.
[151] I am satisfied that even had the parties not consented to such an order that one should go in any event, particularly against the defendant, who has made trivial applications, has misused the court process by opposing disclosure and generally has turned what should have been a relatively straight forward legal proceeding into a marathon of chambers application.
[99] In my opinion, the respondent’s conduct in this litigation meets the criteria for an order sought by the claimant. The respondent has brought repeated applications to re-litigate issues that have already been determined. He has used court proceedings and the threat of such proceedings to attempt to intimidate and influence the claimant’s actions and decisions, particularly with respect to M.T. Overall, the evidence satisfies me that the respondent has not shown himself to be one who is prepared to accept court orders and to abide by them.
[100] In the result, I will grant the relief sought at paragraph 2 of application 3. That is, the respondent is prohibited from making further applications in this family law case without leave of the court for a period of five years. By then, M.T. will be approximately 18 years old and nearly an adult.
[101] I will remain seized of this matter. Consequently, any application for leave to file an application will need to come before me. In the event time is of the essence and I am not available, I will unseize myself so that another judge of this court can hear and decide the application.
