Escape

Litigation abuse in family court: Anyanwu v. Anyanwu, and AB v. CD

Case comment: Anyanwu v. Anyanwu, 2026 ONSC 980

The decision of Anyanwu v Anyanwu, 2026 ONSC 980, from earlier this year, addresses the important issue of litigation abuse (also known as legal bullying) and answers a few important questions:

  • When will courts identify litigation abuse?
  • What orders can be made by the court to address this kind of abuse?

The substantive issues of the case involved a mother seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and the father seeking an order to move back in. The focus of this case comment is on how the court identified and addressed the father’s abusive use of the court process.

Perpetrators of intimate partner violence are known to use the legal system as a weapon and tool to cause harm to their former partner. In Levely v Levely, 2013 ONSC 1026, Justice Chappel noted that the family court process is unfortunately often used as a “destructive tool” in an “abusive game”. Justice Chappel also made strong comments about the importance of the court addressing this conduct:

“The court has a critical responsibility and role to play in ensuring that proceedings which are intended to protect families and lead to resolution of pressing and emotionally divisive issues are not hijacked by a party and transformed into a process for further victimizing the other party and the children in their care.” (para 12)

In Anyanwu, the father engaged in some of the following conduct throughout the proceeding:

  • repeatedly brought motions on the same issue
  • failed to comply with multiple court orders
  • deliberately ignored filing requirements
  • harassed court staff
  • made personal attacks against the mother in written documents and before the court
  • interfered with the mother’s legal representation by filing unfounded complaints about her lawyer, resulting in her becoming unrepresented

Justice Law adopted the following definition of litigation abuse:

“conduct that misuses the Family Court process in a way that could reasonably be expected to cause emotional or financial harm to the other party or their children, which is greater than would occur with the proper use of the family justice process.” (para 67)

Her Honour had no issue finding that the father’s conduct fell within this definition and amounted to litigation abuse.

The father attempted to use his self-represented status to excuse his conduct. Justice Law found that while the Court has an obligation to assist self-represented litigants and, in some cases, make procedural adjustments, that does not mean self-represented litigants are allowed to “flagrantly ignore” court orders, the Family Law Rules, and practice directions.

Citing Levely, Justice Law found that the court had an obligation to make orders to address the misuse of the family court process to cause harm and concluded that the father’s conduct required more stringent case management measures. Her Honour wrote:

“[the father’s] misuse of the court process, his use of the court process to victimize [the mother], and his harassment of professionals associated with the court system requires a firm judicial response. It is my view that the court must step in with more stringent case management orders to ensure that the goals of fair, timely, and proportionate justice, as set out at r. 2 of the Family Law Rules, are met.” (para 74)

Justice Law appointed herself as the case management judge, restricted further motions without leave of the court, set out a process by which the father would have to seek leave, limited the manner in which the father could file court documents, and expressly provided authority to court staff to reject the father’s materials where they did not comply with the Family Law Rules.

AB v CD, 2026 ONSC 2583

AB v CD is another recent case dealing with litigation abuse. In this case, Justice Kamal, in citing Anyanwu, considered whether the court should intervene to prevent potential abuse of the court process.

In this case, the father alleged that the mother had engaged in sex work and sought to have DNA tests completed for the children. The Court was concerned that the father was using the litigation process to denigrate the mother, humiliate her in this public forum, and inflict harm rather than to resolve a genuine legal issue.

Justice Kamal noted that the harm of litigation abuse is compounded in cases of intimate partner violence:

“Parties to family law proceedings and their children are severely harmed by litigation abuse. If parties exploit the court system to maintain abusive behaviour, victims of IPV are more vulnerable to emotional abuse due to the financial and emotional strain of a family court proceeding.”

While Justice Kamal was not prepared to make a finding of family violence or litigation abuse at this stage, His Honour was prepared to make orders to prevent the father’s misuse of the court process as the case proceeds:

“At this time, I am not making a finding of litigation abuse or family violence. This proceeding is in its early stages, this is the first motion, and the evidence before me is untested and incomplete. However, in an effort to curtail any potential efforts to use the court process to inflict emotional or financial harm on the other party or their children, I am raising the issue early in this case. It is important to flag this issue for any other judge who may have involvement with this case moving forward.” (para 106)

Justice Kamal appointed himself case management judge, ordered that future conferences be scheduled before him, and ordered the father not to speak negatively about the mother in the presence of the children.

“Furthermore, in an effort to prevent any potential abuse of the court process, I will be case managing this matter. In this regard, all future conferences shall be scheduled before me, and any motions that are within my jurisdiction and appropriate for me to hear as a case-management judge shall be brought before me.” (paras 106-107)

These decisions together provide helpful precedents going forward about the court’s obligation to recognize and address litigation abuse/legal bullying early on in a court case.

For more information about litigation abuse/legal bullying: