Court Warns Against Abuse of Proceedings in Family Case

Henderson & Lee Law Corporation recently acted in a Supreme Court of British Columbia decision, He v. Fan, 2025 BCSC 1949, addressing the use of court procedures and injunction applications in family litigation. In this case, the Court directly confronted the abuse and improper use of court proceedings to maintain control over a former spouse after property division had already been finalized.

The dispute arose after a lengthy family law trial concerning ownership of a hotel property in British Columbia. Following trial, the Court awarded ownership of the business and the shares of the numbered company to the claimant.

Mr. Chen Shen of our firm represented the claimant on this application.

Injunction relief after final property division

Despite the final order, the respondent applied for sweeping injunctions to restrain the claimant from dealing with her business assets, bank accounts, investments, and financial affairs. The applications included requests under section 91 of the Family Law Act, Rule 12-1 of the Supreme Court Family Rules, and a Mareva injunction.

The Court rejected the majority of the relief sought and emphasized that section 91 of the Family Law Act is unavailable once property division has already been finalized by a final order.

Through its decision, the Court recognized that continuing restraining orders after final property division may undermine the very purpose of finality in family litigation and may permit former spouses to continue exercising improper control "through financial or litigation means". The Court also recognized that excessive litigation restrictions could interfere with the operation and value of an asset such as a business, contrary to the Family Law Act's objective of promoting post-separation self-sufficiency.

Mareva injunctions and litigation abuse

In considering the application for a Mareva injunction, the Court found that it failed to meet several of the high standards required for an injunction. In addition, the Court directly addressed the spectre of litigation abuse. Justice Morley stated that granting the injunction would "promote litigation abuse" given the respondent's history of unreasonably attempting to interfere with the claimant's operation of the business despite earlier agreements permitting her to do so.

Instead of granting the overbroad injunction requests, the Court crafted a balanced and proportionate order to temporarily preserve the status quo by requiring advance notice before any sale of the business or major refinancing. This solution was not strongly opposed by the claimant.

Key takeaways

This decision highlights several important litigation principles:

• Courts do not condone abuse of litigation procedures, especially after final orders have been made;

• Family litigation should not be used as a tool for ongoing financial or personal control;

• Mareva injunctions are extraordinary remedies requiring strict legal thresholds;

• Courts will seek proportionate remedies balancing both parties' interests;

• Finality and post-separation self-sufficiency remain important policy goals in family law.

The decision also demonstrates the Court's increasing willingness to address procedural overreach and strategic misuse of injunction applications in complex family litigation.

Henderson & Lee Law Corporation continues to assist clients throughout British Columbia with complex family litigation, injunction applications, appellate proceedings, property disputes, and strategic litigation management.