A.B. v. C.D.

A.B. v. C.D.

The court found the formal chambers application was necessary because previously published reasons existed and the request sought modification of published judgments; affidavit evidence for the stand-alone Rule 10-3 application was admissible (post-trial material need not be struck and hearsay may be used to show statements were made but not for truth); applying the Sherman Estate balancing test the court concluded there is a serious risk to the identified public interest (children's health, privacy and safety) if actual initials remain, and granted further anonymization ordering that all previous and future reasons be anonymized to A.B. v. C.D. with children anonymized as Y and Z,...

Citation
2026 BCSC 372
Parties
Claimant: A.B.; Respondent: C.D.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Family Law (parenting, Allegations of Family Violence) / Chambers Application Under Rule 10 3 for Further Anonymization; Trial Decision Remains on Reserve
Outcome
Application granted in part: further anonymization orders granted; alternative relief dismissed; no order for costs and each party to bear own costs
Legal Topics
Anonymization, Open Court Principle, Hearsay on Chambers Applications, Judicial Discretion, Sealing and Publication Orders
Source Language
English
Family Law Privacy Civil Procedure Access to Justice Anonymization Open Court Principle Hearsay on Chambers Applications Judicial Discretion +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.B.

Claimant

C.D.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law (parenting, Allegations of Family Violence) / Chambers Application Under Rule 10 3 for Further Anonymization; Trial Decision Remains on Reserve

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a formal chambers application was necessary to seek further anonymization and modification of already published reasons
  2. 2 Whether affidavit evidence filed in support of the application (including post-trial events and hearsay) should be admitted or struck
  3. 3 What legal test/principles govern anonymization orders and whether further anonymization is warranted here

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the formal chambers application was necessary because previously published reasons existed and the request sought modification of published judgments; affidavit evidence for the stand-alone Rule 10-3 application was admissible (post-trial material need not be struck and hearsay may be used to show statements were made but not for truth); applying the Sherman Estate balancing test the court concluded there is a serious risk to the identified public interest (children's health, privacy and safety) if actual initials remain, and granted further anonymization ordering that all previous and future reasons be anonymized to A.B. v. C.D. with children anonymized as Y and Z,...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: further anonymization orders granted; alternative relief dismissed; no order for costs and each party to bear own costs

Orders

  • All previous and future reasons for judgment published in this matter will be anonymized in the form A.B. v. C.D.; all references to the parties in such reasons will be anonymized as A.B. (claimant) and C.D. (respondent)
  • All references to the parties' children in previous and future reasons for judgment published in this matter will be anonymized as Y (elder child) and Z (younger child)