Johnson v. Johnson

2025 BCSC 2022 Johnson v. Johnson

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Johnson v. Johnson, 2025 BCSC 2022. Date: 20250707 Docket: E134786 Registry: Kelowna Between: Melanie Lee Johnson Claimant And Robert Douglas Johnson Respondent Before: The Honourable Justice Bennett in Chambers Oral Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Claimant: T. Bell Appearing in person: R. Johnson Place and Date of Hearing: Kelowna, B.C. July 7, 2025 Place and Date of Judgment: Kelowna, B.C. July 7, 2025 [1] THE COURT: This is the application by the claimant, Melanie Lee Johnson, for the orders sought in the notice of application. [2] The orders sought include an order for a qualified chartered business valuator to be selected at the sole discretion of the claimant to complete a distributive tax report on the parties' dental practice and also on the commercial building that is itemized at paragraph 1. This applicant submits this is necessary because the Supreme Court Family Rules require joint reports to be used, but Dr. Johnson has not co-operated with the obtaining of the report despite that the report is necessary for when this trial proceeds in November 2025. [3] The orders sought at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the notice of application relate to fines against Dr. Johnson for breach of the conduct orders that have been previously imposed by this court. As well, the claimant seeks additional orders restricting Dr. Johnson's

ability to post on social media given the concerns and various examples that have been cited by Mr. Bell. The orders being sought at paragraph 4 relate to those concerns as well. [4] Paragraph 5 deals with an application for Ministry disclosure. I understand that the Ministry of Attorney General has been served with the application and is taking no position with respect to the order other than there are some minor tweaks in wording that they wish to have made. [5] Dr. Johnson has not filed a response to this application, although he is present in court today. He has made his position clear that he is not in agreement with the way these proceedings have been lagging since they were first started; nor is he content with the responses that he has received either from Ms. Johnson, her counsel or former counsel. He has not filed any affidavit or response material and his position to the court today is he is just going to see how this application plays out. [6] I have reviewed the affidavit of material filed in the chambers record and the various exhibits that are attached to the affidavit material. It is without question that Dr. Johnson's emails are unprofessional, derogatory, and harassing in nature both of Melanie Johnson and of her legal counsel, both past and present. I will say that his communications are about the worst communications that I have ever seen in family law

litigation and I have several years of family law litigation under my belt. This is inexcusable behaviour. It is untenable and far from appropriate for any type of court proceeding, let alone one that involves children. [7] The orders that are sought by Ms. Johnson are appropriate in the circumstances. I am granting the orders set out at paragraph 1 as sought. At paragraph 2 there will be a fine against Dr. Johnson for a breach of the conduct orders pursuant to s.228 in the amount of $5,000. There will be orders pursuant to s.222 of the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 on the terms as set out at paragraph 3. [8] There will be an order pursuant to s.225 that Dr. Johnson shall have no communication with claimant's counsel except for matters related to family law issues in dispute. The respondent will not communicate in a manner that is abusive, offensive, or threatening to claimant's counsel and the respondent will not disparage, threaten, accuse, or discuss the ethical or moral integrity of, discuss the legal practices of, or criticize the competence or conduct of claimant's counsel in any communication with claimant's counsel (paragraph 4). [9] There will also be an order with respect to the Ministry disclosure that is sought at paragraph 5. Mr. Bell, did you have any amendments that you needed to make for wording? [10] CNSL T. BELL: I don't believe so. The primary matter was

increasing matters to 45 days. So, that's at paragraph 5(a). I have a draft with me today for madam clerk that sets out exactly the format that has been approved by the Director. [11] THE COURT: Thank you. That deals with the substantive relief sought. Do you wish to make any submissions on costs? [SUBMISSIONS ON SPECIAL COSTS BY CNSL T. BELL] [12] THE COURT: Thank you. The claimant has been successful with all of her application. As I noted at the outset, Dr. Johnson has not filed any response. The respondent will pay the claimant's costs to be assessed as special costs payable forthwith upon assessment. I will also dispense with the requirement of the respondent's signature on the order. [13] CNSL T. BELL: What I would propose consistent with what you indicated to counsel prior, I will amend the order slightly to accord with some of the things that you have just said and return for signature today, if that's all right. [14] THE COURT: Yes. [15] CNSL T. BELL: And before we're off the record, I'd like to apologize for my friends in the room and the court for the time estimate. [16] THE COURT: Thank you. We are done here today, Dr. Johnson. You will be receiving a filed copy of the order. I do encourage you for the sake of moving forward without any further potential, harmful consequences against you (further fines or penalties, or worse, you would not want to find yourself in custody again I am sure that was not a pleasant experience ) [17] THE RESPONDENT: Well, like I said, I think that I'm not the one that should be in custody. And, like, as far as costs go, he was supposed to be on - like, who's paying for him flying up here? I'm not paying for that. [18] THE COURT: Good luck, Dr. Johnson. Thank you. "L. Bennett J." L. BENNETT J.