Chambers judge ordered man to pay ex-wife $2,500 for placing her in a false light
The British Columbia Court of Appeal remitted a family matter after finding that a chambers judge provided no explanation when accepting the existence of a new BC tort arising from a woman’s claim that her ex-husband had placed her in a false light.
In Degen v Bowers, 2026 BCCA 417, the parties married in 2011, bought a family home soon afterward, and separated in 2018. The respondent ex-wife’s counsel held the proceeds of the 2021 sale of the family home.
The couple’s relationship before and after the separation was tumultuous. There was evidence that the appellant ex-husband cut up his former wife’s clothes and smashed some of her possessions.
In a summary trial application filed on June 10, 2025, the ex-wife sought final orders for a divorce and a division of family property and debt. She also requested a restraining order, personal injury damages, and costs.
Through his response and a supporting affidavit, the ex-husband objected to most of the relief sought.
Summary trial application hearing
At a hearing before the Supreme Court of British Columbia on Sept. 3, 2025, the ex-husband did not attend and did not answer when paged.
In the ex-husband’s absence, the chambers judge largely granted the ex-wife’s requested orders without explanation and despite conflicting evidence. The judge accepted the ex-wife’s proposed equalization payment of $33,631.
The ex-husband, who was self-represented, wanted to attend the summary trial by Microsoft Teams. After a remote hearing, the judge denied the ex-husband’s oral application and saw no basis to revisit his earlier orders.
British Columbia Court of Appeal grants appeal
On appeal, the ex-husband challenged the chambers judge’s final orders, including those relating to equalizing family property and debt. He alleged that the judge erred by ignoring evidence he submitted and by denying him access to a share of his ex-wife’s Canada Pension Plan (CPP) benefits.
The Court of Appeal for British Columbia allowed the ex-husband’s appeal from paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10 of the judge’s orders. The appeal court remitted these matters to the lower court for a new trial.
BC Court of Appeal sees errors in orders
The BC Court of Appeal acknowledged that the record revealed to some extent the chambers judge’s basis for issuing certain orders.
However, the appeal court ruled that the judge failed to provide sufficient reasons to enable appellate review and drew conclusions regarding legal questions and disputed factual issues without explaining his reasoning.
Regarding the family property division, the appeal court determined that the judge failed to:
- consider the ex-husband’s claims for his ex-wife to contribute to household expenses
- explain how he dealt with the dispute about whether the ex-husband kept some of his ex-wife’s jewellery
- address whether the ex-wife appropriately included an excluded property claim in a suggested schedule
Concerning the ex-wife’s request for $50,000 as compensation for property damage or disposal, the appeal court held that the judge did not:
- explain why he accepted the replacement value approach, as opposed to the market value method, for the listed items
- address whether the value of the items amounted to $50,000
As for the $2,500 award for the ex-wife’s claim that her ex-husband placed her in a false light by posting false and offensive information about her in public locations, the appeal court pointed out that the chambers judge recognized a new tort in the province without explanation.
Lastly, regarding costs, the appeal court concluded that the chambers judge fixed the sum at $10,000 without a basis for this amount.
Canada Pension Plan issue
The BC Court of Appeal decided that the chambers judge did not err by failing to address the CPP issue, given that the ex-husband did not raise it before the trial court.
However, the ex-wife accepted that the ex-husband could pursue a division of these benefits through an application to Service Canada.
BC Court of Appeal’s prior family cases
On July 27, the appeal court affirmed a trial judge’s dismissal of a woman’s action seeking damages from her former husband based on the torts of sexual assault, assault, battery, and intentional infliction of mental suffering.
On Jan. 22, the appeal court dismissed an ex-husband’s appeal alleging errors in a trial judge’s determination of his income for support purposes and decision to set the imputed income as a baseline in future spousal support reviews.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest family law news on the main page!
