">
When a family law case involves multiple issues, such as support, property division, and the validity of an agreement, courts generally prefer to resolve all outstanding matters in a single proceeding. However, judges have the discretion to bifurcate a case, splitting it into separate proceedings to address specific issues individually. This is a powerful tool that is used cautiously, as courts aim to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings. A judge will only order a case to be split if it can be demonstrated that doing so is in the interests of justice and will not cause prejudice to any of the parties involved.
Courts Prefer to Avoid Multiple Proceedings
In Baillargeon v. Nesbitt, the parties had signed a cohabitation agreement at the start of their relationship. The agreement prohibited either bringing a claim for support against the other or making a claim against the other’s property if the relationship ended. The applicant asked for the agreement to be declared void, and advanced claims for support, equalization of net family property, and a finding that she had a trust interest in the matrimonial home. The respondent sought to bifurcate the proceeding and asked that the issue of the agreement’s validity be determined before addressing the remainder of the applicant’s claims. He argued that if the agreement were to be upheld, it would effectively end the applicant’s other claims.
The applicant opposed the request to bifurcate the proceeding. She alleged that it was premature and procedurally improper to grant the request. Further, she alleged that the respondent’s attempt to isolate the issue of the validity of the agreement was simply a tactic to delay consideration of the substantive claims that she was advancing and was ultimately an attempt to avoid financial accountability. The applicant pointed to a specific paragraph of their agreement, which stipulated that “subject to any trust declaration relating to the matrimonial home, property held in the name of one party will be deemed owned by that party”. For the applicant, this contemplated that parties could bring claims for equitable relief. On that basis, she argued that there were parts of her claim that could proceed irrespective of whether the agreement was determined to be valid. She also pointed out that, while she denied the agreement was valid, even if it was found to be valid, the respondent still needed to provide financial disclosure. And that a separate trial would add time and complexity rather than simplify the case.
Conditions Must Be Met Before a Judge Will Split a Case
The judge first acknowledged that multiple proceedings should be avoided and the issues should be decided in a single trial. Yet, it is true that “there are instances where the interests of justice are served by bifurcation of the issues as long as no prejudice is caused to either party”. Justice Fraser pointed to section 12(5) of the Family Law Rules which deals with combining and splitting cases, and which provides that “if it would be more convenient to hear two or more cases, claims or issues together or to split a case into two or more separate cases, claims or issues, the court may, on motion, order accordingly”.
Simioni v. Simioni is a leading case that dealt with bifurcation. In that case, the judge found that courts had inherent jurisdiction to split instances, and that authority could be exercised where it was convenient and in the interests of justice. Justice Quigley then explained that the interests of justice would be served if there are clear benefits in both time and expense that can be gained from bifurcating the proceedings and determining a threshold issue, and if “no real or meaningful prejudice is caused to either party”. Yet, splitting a trial is a departure from the principle that multiplicities of proceedings should be avoided. For that reason, the judge also highlighted that the power to split a case should be reserved only for clear cases that can justify the court exercising that power. In addition, the party seeking to bifurcate the proceedings has the onus of satisfying the court that the order should be granted. In Merck & Co. Inc. v. Brantford Chemicals Inc., it was suggested that bifurcation can be ordered where a court accepts that “severance is more likely than not to result in the just, expeditious and least expensive determination of the proceeding on its merits”.
In Simioni, Justice Quigley set out several questions for courts to consider when weighing whether the severance of a trial is just and expeditious. These include:
- Whether the issues dealt with on the first trial are straightforward, and the extent to which they are interwoven with the problems that will arise in the second trial.
- Whether a decision from the first trial will likely end the action, significantly narrow remaining issues, or significantly increase the likelihood of a settlement.
- The extent that resources have already been devoted to all of the issues.
- The possibility of delay.
- The advantages or prejudice the parties are likely to experience, and whether severance is sought on consent or over the objections of one or more of the parties.
Party Sought to Address Validity of the Cohabitation Agreement Separately
Whether the agreement was valid for the judge in Baillargeon was a discrete issue. The judge found that few witnesses would need to testify to make that determination, and evidence would be centred on the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement, such as the financial information that the parties disclosed. The judge also agreed with the respondent that if the agreement were upheld, it would bar most of the applicant’s substantive claims. Although the applicant acknowledged that the agreement’s validity would prevent her claims for spousal support and equalization from proceeding, she argued she would still be able to bring her claim for equitable relief. But the judge disagreed with her interpretation of the agreement.
Justice Fraser concluded that the agreement prohibited the parties from bringing equitable claims. Therefore, even if the agreement were valid, it would still prohibit the applicant’s claim for equitable relief. Nevertheless, the judge also pointed out that this was a discrete question of contract interpretation, which was separate from the issue of whether the agreement overall was valid. And “the evidence relevant to whether the agreement is valid is not the same as or pertinent to the evidence that needs to be adduced to support the remaining claims in this proceeding”.
Ultimately, the evidence needed to support the applicant’s claims for spousal support, equalization of net family properties, and equitable relief was more complex and expansive in scope than the evidence relating to the agreement’s validity. Yet, the evidence needed for the applicant’s other claims was not necessary to determine the validity of the agreement. Consequently, the judge felt there could be significant time and cost savings if the validity of the agreement was decided first. Moreover, the issues were not interwoven and did not need to be decided concurrently. Justice Fraser felt that if the trial continued without bifurcation, it would have a larger scope and greater complexity.
Judge Finds There Would Be Benefits From Bifurcation
Additionally, the judge believed that if the agreement’s validity was determined first, this might prompt settlement discussions, since the determination of that issue would certainly impact the other claims the applicant wished to advance. This could prompt a quicker resolution and reduce the costs incurred by the parties since they would not spend time dealing with issues the applicant might not be permitted to bring. Importantly, neither party would be prejudiced if the trial were bifurcated. Instead, the judge noted that the applicant would have lessened her exposure to an adverse costs award by determining the agreement’s validity first. And there was not likely to be any delay with this approach, as the judge felt the first trial could proceed within a four to six-month period and would not be lengthy. Overall, the agreement’s validity was a threshold issue that “requires a determination of a separate factual circumstance and the application of different legal principles than what would be required to determine the remaining issues”. And the facts of this case were more aligned with prior cases that granted bifurcation requests. After reviewing the relevant factors, Justice Fraser agreed the respondent had established that bifurcating the issues would lead to the most just, expeditious, and least costly resolution of this proceeding.
Courts May Split a Case if There is No Prejudice to the Parties
The power to split a case is discretionary, and courts will only exercise its authority to bifurcate a case in clear instances where the interests of justice are served. For bifurcation, there should not be meaningful prejudice to either party.
Johnson Miller Family Lawyers: Experienced and Compassionate Windsor Family Lawyers
The legal principle of bifurcation highlights the importance of strategic planning in family law cases. Whether your situation involves divorce, separation, complex property and asset division, or common law separation, understanding how to navigate these complexities is crucial.
At Johnson Miller Family Lawyers, we provide tailored guidance to help you make informed decisions. To discuss the specifics of your situation or to arrange a consultation, please complete our online questionnaire or contact our firm at 519.973.1500.
