Family law, particularly when it involves high-conflict disputes over children, is a highly complex area. The court’s stated goal is always to determine the “best interests of the child.” But what happens when a judge’s assessment of those best interests is based on a misreading of the evidence?

A recent decision from the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, J.A. v. K.A., provides a powerful and dramatic example. The appeal court performed a rare and significant reversal of a trial judgment, finding the initial decision was built on “palpable and overriding errors of fact.”

The Trial Decision: A Narrative of a “Weaponized” System

The case involved a couple, J.A. (the father) and K.A. (the mother), in a protracted and acrimonious dispute over their 11-year-old son. Following a 12-day trial, the trial judge made several key orders, almost all of which favoured the mother.

The trial judge’s decision was anchored in a particular narrative. She found that the father had, since before the separation, formed a strategy to gain full custody (decision-making responsibility) and remove the mother from the family home. The judge concluded that the father had “purposefully and, arguably, effectively, weaponized the legal system… to disenfranchise [the mother’s] parenting.”

Based on this central finding, the trial judge:

• Granted the mother sole responsibility for all parenting decisions.
• Ordered the father to pay the mother indefinite spousal support.
• Ordered the father to pay child support for his stepson.
• Ordered the father to reimburse the mother for missing cash (Euros).

The father appealed all of these orders. The mother cross-appealed, arguing she should have been awarded her legal costs.

The Appeal: A “Tainted” View of the Facts

The father’s primary argument on appeal was that the trial judge’s entire assessment of the child’s best interests was flawed because it was based on fundamental errors regarding the evidence.

Appeals are not a simple “do-over.” An appeal court will not overturn a trial judge’s decision simply because it disagrees with the outcome. The bar is exceptionally high. The appellant must prove a “palpable and overriding error”: a clear, obvious, and significant mistake of fact that affected the entire outcome of the case.

In this case, the Court of Appeal found the father met this high standard. The court concluded the trial judge had both misapprehended key evidence and ignored or overlooked a substantial body of contradictory evidence.

Material Misapprehension of the Father’s Intentions

The trial judge’s “weaponization” narrative was built on a single piece of evidence: a notebook the father kept before separation where he jotted down questions for his lawyer, including “How do I get 100% custody of [the Child]”.

The trial judge believed this note was confirmed when the father’s lawyer sent the mother a draft separation agreement that, in the judge’s words, “proposed that he have full custody.”

This was a critical error. Both parties agreed in their testimony that this draft agreement did not propose sole custody. In fact, it proposed 50-50 shared parenting and joint parental responsibilities.

The Court of Appeal found this was not a minor mistake. It was a “palpable and overriding error” that “tainted the lens through which she viewed [the father’s] evidence” and his motives. The judge’s entire theory that the father had a premeditated strategy to gain full custody, a theory that led to her disbelieving him on almost every other point, was based on a misreading of this key event.

Overlooked Evidence About Mother’s Behaviour

The appeal court found an even more pervasive error: the trial judge had overlooked or ignored a massive body of objective evidence that supported the father’s concerns about the mother’s behaviour.

The trial judge had characterized the mother’s inappropriate behaviour as a “reaction” to the father’s “litigation strategy.” The Court of Appeal found that this ignored significant evidence to the contrary.

Ignored Professional Reports

Professionals retained to help the family had terminated their services due to the mother’s conduct. One supervision service withdrew, citing the mother’s inability to “separate the ongoing adult conflicts from her relationship with her son” and her “lacking insight” into the adverse effect her conflict had on him. Another counselling clinic also terminated services, reporting concerns with the mother’s “escalating behaviours” and “consistently strong negative mindset” towards the father. The trial judge barely mentioned this evidence.

Ignored Medical Evidence

The trial judge relied heavily on a 2021 letter from the family doctor, which stated the mother had no mental health issues that would compromise her co-parenting. However, the judge ignored the doctor’s more recent trial testimony. He testified that the child was exhibiting “anxiety and regressive development behaviours”. He reported feeling “angry, sad, and confused” because of the “bad things his mother was saying to him about his father.” The judge also did not address the doctor’s testimony that he had to dismiss the mother from his practice due to her pattern of “yelling and swearing,” “verbal threats,” and “derogatory comments.”

Ignored Evidence from the Child

Most critically, the trial judge’s finding that the mother “understands the importance of refraining from such behaviour” was directly contradicted by the evidence.

The child himself, in separate interviews with a judge and his own lawyer, reported that his mother’s “trash talk” about his father caused him “significant sorrow and distress.” The child’s lawyer submitted that the child did not believe his mother could or would stop, given that she continued even after a judge told her to.

The Flawed Credibility Finding

This overlooked evidence led directly to a flawed credibility assessment. The trial judge found the mother “understands the importance of refraining” from disparaging the father.

The Court of Appeal found this conclusion “inconsistent with [the mother’s] evidence at trial.” In her testimony, the mother did not acknowledge her behaviour. Instead, she denied saying negative things, testified that she did not trust the child, and stated her belief that the child was influenced by the father to make such allegations.

In short, the trial judge found that the mother “understood” the problem, whereas her own testimony proved that she didn’t even believe the problem existed.

New Trial Ordered for Parenting Responsibilities

The Court of Appeal set aside the trial judge’s order giving the mother sole parenting responsibilities. The errors were so fundamental that they “undermine[d] her assessment of the Child’s best interests.”

The issue of parenting responsibilities has been remitted for a new trial. The appeal court put in place an interim order for shared parental responsibilities (with some exceptions) to govern the family until the new trial can be heard.

Spousal Support Appeal: Indefinite is Not Automatic

The father also successfully appealed the order for indefinite spousal support. The trial judge had found the mother was entitled to “non-compensatory” support (based on need, not for career sacrifices made during the marriage).

The Court of Appeal found that ordering indefinite support was an error in principle. The court noted this was a relatively short relationship, the mother received a significant share of property, and there was no medical evidence that she was permanently disabled from working.

The judge’s only reason for refusing to add a review date was that it would be an “invitation to continue this bitter and destructive litigation.” The appeal court found this was not a valid legal reason to award indefinite support.

The order was varied to include a review date for spousal support, to be heard after July 1, 2026.

The Stepson Child Support Appeal

The father also successfully appealed the order requiring him to pay child support for his stepson.

Under BC law, a biological parent has the primary duty to support their child. A stepparent’s obligation is secondary and is only determined after the court assesses the biological parent’s legal duty.

Here, the trial judge determined the biological father’s income based on the mother’s affidavit, which contained her statements about his retirement and his finances. The father objected, arguing this was inadmissible hearsay.

The Court of Appeal agreed. The trial judge erred in law by relying on “inadmissible and unreliable” hearsay evidence. There was no reliable evidence to establish the biological father’s income, making it impossible to determine the father’s (J.A.’s) secondary obligation, if any.

This issue was also set aside and remitted for a new trial, with an interim order for support pending that new hearing.

Appeal Dismissed on Only One Ground: The Missing Euros

Not every part of the appeal was successful. The father’s appeal of the order to repay the €7,700 in missing cash was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found there was “no basis for appellate interference” with this specific factual finding. Finally, the mother’s cross-appeal for legal costs was dismissed.

Key Takeaways for Parenting Disputes

This case is a stark reminder of several key principles in BC family law:

Appeals Are Hard, but Not Impossible

Overturning a trial decision is exceptionally difficult. An appellant must show a clear, game-changing error. This case is a prime example of what that high standard looks like in practice.

Narrative vs. Fact

In high-conflict cases, it is easy for a “narrative” to take hold. This case shows the danger of a court adopting one party’s narrative in the face of contradictory evidence.

The Power of Objective Evidence

The father’s case on appeal was built on the evidence the trial judge ignored. This evidence was powerful precisely because it came from third parties: medical doctors, court-appointed counsellors, parenting supervisors, and the child’s own lawyer. This objective evidence was ultimately more persuasive than the trial judge’s preferred narrative.

Evidence Must Be Admissible

A court cannot make orders, especially those related to support, based solely on hearsay, assumptions, or shortcuts. The appeal on stepchild support was won because the initial order was not based on reliable, admissible financial evidence.

“Best Interests” Must Be Based on All the Facts

A finding of a child’s “best interests” can be overturned if it is based on a flawed or incomplete reading of the facts.

Meridian Law Group: Vancouver Family Lawyers Advocating for Clients in Parenting Disputes

If a parenting dispute or appeal is upending your family’s routine, we can help. At Meridian Law Group, our family and divorce lawyers analyze the record, focus on admissible evidence, and build a strategy aligned with your child’s best interests.

Meridian Law Group is based in the heart of downtown Vancouver and proudly serves clients across British Columbia, Canada, and internationally. Call (604) 687-2277 or reach out online to discuss options, including interim measures and appeal considerations, in a confidential consultation.