Using the Court to Censure an Uncooperative Litigant
Although litigation is necessarily contentious, as it involves a dispute between two parties, the parties are often required to cooperate to some extent in order to bring the case to trial in an efficient manner. One such area where cooperation is required is in examinations for discovery, where both parties have the right to question the other party prior to trial. But what happens when one party does not cooperate, repeatedly and persistently, contrary to the orders of the Court? The Calgary Legal Team recently secured a decision in favour of our client against one such persistently uncooperative litigant.
Background
In Ross Estate (Re), 2026 BCSC 1549 [Ross], the BC Supreme Court dealt with a party who constantly avoided her discovery obligations by providing required disclosures in incomplete form after deadlines had passed (if they were provided at all) and continually evading scheduled questioning. Ross involves an estate that is subject to competing claims by the decedent’s former wife and his common-law partner. The wife originally brought the claim, but she became uncooperative when the common-law partner responded and sought to examine her pursuant to the discovery process. To date, the wife has refused to be examined, despite multiple Court Orders requiring her to comply with her discovery obligations.
Sending A Message
Consequently, The Calgary Legal Team brought yet another application regarding discovery on behalf of the common law partner and requested the Court award interim special costs to send a message to the wife that her uncooperative behaviour will not be permitted by the Court. Special costs are awarded against a party that has engaged in reprehensible misconduct, in particular when that party makes resolving an issue much harder than it needed to be through their obstructive conduct. In Ross, the justice found that she could not determine the full effect of the wife’s obstructive conduct until litigation was complete, because there were no discrete instances of reprehensible conduct that could be separated from the full context of the litigation. However, the justice ordered standard costs against the wife in respect of the application, and she left it open to the common-law partner to apply for special costs at the conclusion of litigation. The justice strongly criticized the wife’s persistent uncooperative and obstructive behaviour, intending her Order to send a clear message to the wife that her conduct is unacceptable.
What This Means For You
If you are involved in litigation, it is imperative that you follow the orders of the Court. Delays are not tolerated, particularly when there is a pattern of avoidance and refusal to comply with the Court’s directions. Whether you’re the plaintiff or the defendant, discovery obligations are mandatory, and you cannot refuse to be questioned by the other party.
How We Can Help
At The Calgary Legal Team, we will help you push back against an opposing party who is digging their heels in and refusing to cooperate despite the orders of the Court. The justice’s decision in Ross is just one example of the results of our dedicated advocacy on behalf of our clients.
The Calgary Legal Team is here to help!
Comments