Meritless Litigation and the Courts: A Growing Issue

Meritless Litigation and the Courts: A Growing Issue in Family Law 

Not all family law matters brought before the Court warrant judicial time and resources. In fact, some matters should never be initiated at all. The following case and its procedural history illustrate conduct that is wholly inappropriate for any litigant appearing before the Court.

The Criminal Background and Civil Action

The underlying history begins with the Appellant’s guilty plea to assault in Provincial Court in November 2020, for which he received an absolute discharge. Subsequently, the Respondent commenced a civil action in Schuetze v. Pyper, 2021 BCSC 2209 (CanLII), seeking damages for the injuries she sustained during the assault. The Appellant filed a counterclaim. At trial, Justice Fleming found the Respondent to be a credible witness and ruled in her favour, determining that credibility was the central issue.

Failed Civil Appeal

The Appellant then improperly attempted to appeal the civil judgment in Pyper v. Schuetze, 2023 BCCA 334 (CanLII). He alleged that Justice Fleming erred in assessing credibility, in weighing the evidence, and in her causation analysis. He submitted that her findings were improperly influenced by the Respondent’s references to past violence, hearsay evidence, and her conclusions regarding abusive text messages from 2013, which he claimed were speculative and unsupported. In essence, the Appellant asserted that Justice Fleming scrutinized the evidence unevenly, favouring the Respondent. The Court of Appeal rejected all grounds of appeal, refused to admit fresh evidence, and held that the Appellant’s allegations of uneven scrutiny were without merit.

Protracted Family Law Trial and Appeal

After a protracted 40-day family law trial in K.S.P. v. J.T.P., 2023 BCSC 118 (CanLII), the Appellant appealed once again in J.P. v. K.S., 2025 BCCA 112 (CanLII). He advanced two principal grounds: that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias arising from the trial judge’s case management decisions, conduct during trial, and subsequent orders; and that the judge erred with respect to relocation, parenting, child support arrears, and property issues. The Respondent sought dismissal of the appeal, arguing that the Appellant’s conduct amounted to an abuse of process and that he continued to pursue meritless litigation.

Court Finds Abusive Litigation Conduct

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, describing the Appellant’s litigation conduct as abusive, coercive, and controlling. This case demonstrates that persistent, vexatious litigation tactics can independently justify the dismissal of an appeal. Justice Iyer’s reasons include the following key passages:

Detailed Pattern of Abusive Applications

After Justice MacNaughton delivered her reasons on July 10, 2023, the appellant sought to stay her order in this Court on July 14, 2023. On July 25, 2023, Justice Hunter dismissed the stay application. On September 5, 2023, the appellant applied for a stay before Justice MacNaughton, who denied it. On November 6, 2023, Justice Butler dismissed the appellant’s application for stays of multiple orders in the Final Order.

On November 30, 2023, the appellant sought an extension of time to file an application to vary the order of Justice Butler, which was denied on December 13, 2023 by Justice Fenlon. On the same day, he applied to vary the order of Justice Fenlon before a division of the Court. On March 4, 2024, the division dismissed his application in reasons written by Justice Winteringham, indexed as 2024 BCCA 78.

On April 16, 2024, the appellant wrote to the Registrar seeking the recusal of Justice Winteringham and review of her decision. On April 16, 2024, the Registrar rejected this request on the basis that recusal applications must be advanced before decisions are rendered.

During the same period, the appellant was also challenging the Registrar’s refusal to permit him to file limited rather than full transcripts of the family trial. A single justice sustained the Registrar’s decision (indexed at 2023 BCCA 408), which was then sustained by a division of this Court (indexed at 2024 BCCA 26).

Since the hearing of his family law appeal, the appellant has filed another appeal from an order made by a justice of the Supreme Court dismissing his application for orders in relation to parenting time based on his interpretation of the Final Order.

The respondent seeks an order for increased costs based on the appellant’s misuse of court processes. I agree that his conduct of the appeal, as I have set out in paragraphs 76–80 above, merits an award of increased costs and I would so order.

Conclusion: The Cost of Meritless Appeals

In summary, repeatedly appealing matters without any legitimate merit provides no legal benefit and only increases a litigant’s financial burden. Depending on the circumstances, it is often more prudent and reasonable to accept the Court’s decision rather than pursue endless, meritless appeals motivated by frustration, pettiness, or a desire for retribution.