The British Columbia Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial on disputed family-property, damages and costs orders because the judge gave no reasons explaining how he resolved conflicting evidence and legal questions.
In Degen v Bowers, 2026 BCCA 417, Chief Justice Marchand held that the absence of an explanation prevented meaningful appellate review. Justices Fisher and Brundrett agreed with the October 23, 2026 decision.
The appeal concerned specified financial and related finality orders, not the parties’ divorce. The court did not decide the disputed allegations in Bradley Degen’s favour; it returned the challenged matters to the trial court for a properly reasoned determination.
A hearing held without the opposing party
Laura Bowers’ application for final relief by summary trial was heard in September 2025. Degen, who represented himself, had filed a response and affidavit opposing most of the requested orders but did not attend when the application was heard.
The judge proceeded, stated that he had reviewed the materials, asked questions of Bowers’ counsel and largely granted the relief sought. After dealing with the matters, the judge was told Degen wished to participate remotely. He heard and dismissed that request and declined to revisit the orders.
Degen appealed orders requiring a $33,631 equalization payment for family property and debt, $50,000 for property damaged or disposed of, $2,500 for placing Bowers in a false light and $10,000 in costs. He also challenged provisions ending further property division and dismissing the remaining claims.
He did not appeal the divorce, provisions addressing service of protection orders, or the direction that each party retain assets and debts registered solely in their own name.
Reasons must explain the result
Marchand acknowledged the demands on trial judges, including heavy caseloads, complex disputes and increasing numbers of self-represented parties. But a party’s failure to appear did not remove the need to explain disputed rulings.
Reasons tell the losing party why they lost, allow a meaningful assessment of possible appeal grounds and demonstrate that justice has been done. Their adequacy must be considered in the context of the whole record.
The court emphasized that short reasons do not automatically justify a new trial. Less detail may suffice where the record makes the basis of the result apparent. Here, however, the missing reasoning could not be supplied by reading the materials.
Bowers argued that the judge had both parties’ evidence, that nothing showed he had failed to consider it, and that his decision deserved deference. She nevertheless acknowledged the difficulty that the absence of reasons created for appellate review.
Unexplained calculations and legal conclusions
The equalization award did not explain how the judge resolved disputed household-expense claims, conflicting positions about property retained by Degen or the treatment of claimed excluded property.
There was evidence supporting allegations of damaged belongings. But the judge did not explain why compensation was based on replacement values instead of market values for some or all items, or provide the reasoning needed to review the $50,000 award.
The $2,500 false-light award raised a separate problem: the trial judge recognized a new tort in British Columbia without explaining that legal conclusion. The appeal court did not itself establish or reject such a tort.
The entered costs order also specified $10,000 even though no order for that amount had been made, and its basis was not apparent from the record.
Those gaps prevented the usual deference to family-law rulings. The court allowed the appeal from the six challenged paragraphs and remitted those matters for a new trial.
Degen also raised Canada Pension Plan credit division. Because he had not raised that issue below, the trial judge had not erred by failing to address it. Bowers conceded that he could apply to Service Canada for a division of the parties’ benefits; the appeal court did not award any pension amount.
