Courts pushing back on Weaponizing the Process

Today’s post compares to cases. Two very different families. Two very different BC courtrooms. And yet the same underlying pattern that judges are increasingly unwilling to tolerate: one parent using process, agreement terms, or financial control to box the other out of their child's life.

These two cases illustrate a pattern from opposite ends of the spectrum. One involves a father in Fort St. John fighting to see his son in Kamloops after being denied parenting time for nearly two years. The other involves a mother in Vancouver who endured years of financial abuse before the appellate court, confirmed she had been wronged.

Together, they paint a vivid picture of how BC courts think about parental conduct, credibility, and the best interests of children.

Case One: The Sobriety Agreement That Became a Trap (J.V. v. J.G., 2026 BCSC 1053)

In December 2023, the father in this case signed an agreement having been denied parenting time for four months\. The mother had moved to Kamloops in August without telling him, and she wouldn't let him see their child unless he agreed to her terms.

Those terms included random breathalyzer testing, at the mother's discretion, at any time during his parenting time. The father says he signed because it was the only way to see his son at Christmas. He had no lawyer present.

For two years after that, the agreement became less of a parenting plan and more of a gatekeeping tool. The mother repeatedly denied visits, citing alcohol testing requirements. She took away a cell phone the father had given their son for his birthday. She blocked calls from the father and even from the son's half-sister, who had been close to the son. The son was eventually reaching out from a school principal's phone on his birthday because that was the only way he could talk to his dad. Which is more than a little tear jerking.

In April 2026, Justice Burke had seen enough. The court found the father had successfully passed multiple breathalyzer tests over two years. In doing so demonstrating an ability to control his alcohol use in advance of parenting time. The court suspended the agreement, replaced it with meaningful parenting time, and terminated the random testing clause. The mother was ordered to provide five weeks of summer parenting time, the Christmas 2026 holiday, and Spring Break 2027.

The agreement itself was declared null and void, in part because the father had signed it under duress, without legal advice, when access to his son was being used as leverage.

Case Two: When Financial Control Is Family Violence (Shahid v. Sattar, 2026 BCCA 274)

In this case, the BC Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by a husband who had argued, among other things, that the trial judge was biased against him. The trial judge found that the father lacked credibility, ordered him to pay spousal and child support, and ordered an equal division of family property.

The facts found at trial were stark. The husband had taken complete control of the family's finances. The wife was only occasionally allowed to use a debit card for specific approved purchases. She had to give him a list of what was needed, and he would decide what to buy. She received so little spending money that she relied on free grocery services for struggling families and asked her brother to buy essentials for her and their baby. When she visited Pakistan for six months, she was given $300 for the whole trip and had to ask his father for basics like diapers and bread.

The trial judge found this pattern of financial control constituted family violence under the Divorce Act, specifically financial abuse that 'constitutes a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour.' Side note, this would like meet the threshold for damages under the newly created tort of intimate partner violence, but the trial reasons came out before the Supreme Court of Canada created such.

On appeal, the husband raised 17 alleged errors. He devoted eight pages of his factum to arguing about who had taken photographs of jewellery. He complained about the length of his wife's commute. He insisted a photograph of his father-in-law standing with a former Pakistani politician proved her family was wealthy.

The Court of Appeal was unimpressed. Justice Griffin noted that the husband's 'persistent focus' on the political photograph 'borders on the absurd' and highlighted his 'inability to separate relevance from pettiness.' The appeal was dismissed entirely.

What Both Cases Tell Us About Credibility

Both of these cases turn, at their core, on credibility. In J.V. v. J.G., Justice Burke assessed the evidence and concluded the father had consistently complied with testing, while the mother had used the agreement terms to interfere with the parent-child relationship. In Shahid v. Sattar, the trial judge and the appeal court found the wife's evidence clear, consistent, and persuasive, while the husband demonstrated a persistent lack of objectivity.

Credibility is the most important asset any party has at trial. In terms of advocacy, finding ways to strengthen a client’s credibility is essential. It is almost always true that if a party wins the credibility battle, they will win the trial and these cases demonstrate and reinforce that.

The Practical Takeaway

Using control as leverage in both these cases created problems for the individual exercising the control. The mother that used the child as a weapon, or the father that used finances as a weapon both found themselves regretting that decision in the long term. If you are in a similar situation, it can be impossibly hard to preserver but preserver you must. Unfortunately, the courts are slow moving. As a lawyer, I cannot change that. What I can do is help set you up, like these individual were, to obtain a final outcome that recognizes the impacts of coercive control.

If you are in a situation that is similar to either of these cases, give us a call and we will see how we can help you.