BC Supreme Court refuses to consolidate family law and injury actions arising from family violence

The British Columbia Supreme Court has upheld an associate judge’s refusal to consolidate family law and civil proceedings arising from an incident in which a man sliced his wife’s throat with a knife before falling onto the weapon himself. 

In Vance v Reum, 2026 BCSC 456, the parties began a marriage-like relationship in approximately March 2023, married in February 2024, and separated in March 2024 due to the family violence incident. 

In a family law action, the respondent ex-wife sought property division and spousal support. She referred to the family violence incident in her pleadings. In a civil action, she then requested damages for personal injury, including past and future lost income. 

The appellant ex-husband pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and received a five-year imprisonment sentence. He filed an application asking the court to consolidate the two actions or hear them at the same time. Alternatively, he sought relief relating to pretrial procedural and evidentiary matters. 

In December 2025, an associate judge of the BC Supreme Court dismissed the ex-husband’s application. However, the judge granted the requested alternative relief, to which the ex-wife had agreed, concerning the use of pretrial procedures. 

The ex-husband appealed. He accepted that the judge referred to the correct legal test. However, he alleged that the judge misdirected himself when applying the test and let a single consideration, the ex-wife’s preference for a jury trial in the personal injury proceeding, overwhelm his analysis. 

Actions to remain separate

The Supreme Court of British Columbia deferred to the associate judge’s exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal. The court determined that the judge: 

• knew the relevant legal test 
• considered the applicable factors, including the ex-wife’s wish for a jury trial in the personal injury action 
• indicated that the loss of a jury trial was not enough on its own to decide the outcome 
• was aware of concerns regarding proportionality and the possible duplication of evidence 
• found that the ex-husband’s alternative request of relief would address concerns about inefficiency, inconsistent findings, or double recovery 

The court rejected the argument that the judge treated the ex-wife’s preference for a jury as a “trump card.” 

The court also disagreed with the assertion that the judge’s reference to two case authorities involving applications to strike juries showed that he applied the wrong test. The court noted that the judge: 

• did not rely on the principles from those authorities to determine the consolidation application 
• explicitly acknowledged that those two cases did not involve consolidation applications 
• found that those authorities contained statements of principle relevant to the court’s respect for a party’s presumptive right to avail of a jury trial 

The court ruled that the ex-husband overstated the connection between the civil and family law proceedings. Regarding the family law action, the court explained that spousal support: 

• sought to relieve a party from a marriage breakdown’s economic consequences 
• involved an analysis of both parties’ economic circumstances and prospects, not only those of the recipient of support 
• would generally result in periodic payments, with the court possibly conducting future reviews if needed 

The court noted that the civil action included a claim for non-pecuniary damages, which: 

• focused on the underlying assault’s impact on the plaintiff’s life and income 
• aimed to return the plaintiff to the position in which they would have been, if not for the defendant’s wrongful conduct 
• would not consider the defendant’s economic circumstances 
• would lead to a single award of compensation if successful 

The court accepted that there would be some overlap between the family law and civil proceedings in connection with the ex-wife’s present and future ability to work, which would impact both her spousal support claim in the family law matter and her claim for damages for lost income in the personal injury matter. 

However, the court reiterated that spousal support and damages for lost income engaged different legal interests.