Background
Malgorzata Narejko appealed a Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling that she and Simon Li had reached a settlement in their family-law dispute. The parties had married in 2019 and separated in 2020. Ms. Narejko disputed aspects of the divorce, including the effect of finalizing it on benefits connected to Mr. Li’s Canadian Armed Forces employment.
The appeal was dismissed as abandoned in March 2025, with special costs to Mr. Li, after the Court found that Ms. Narejko had failed to meet filing requirements and was using the appeal to delay the divorce while pursuing benefit-related arguments in the Supreme Court. The dismissal judge held that this collateral use of the appeal was a significant abuse of process. Registrar Outerbridge was then asked to assess the special costs, including costs of a disclosure application related to the assessment.
The Court’s Holding
The Registrar assessed Mr. Li’s special costs at $34,518.40, rather than the $38,181.28 claimed. The allowed amount comprised $32,745 in fees and $1,773.40 in disbursements. The Registrar reduced the claim for excessive time on the appeal, disallowed library-search charges as overhead, reduced assessment time attributable to ordinary-costs issues, and allowed only $200 of the amount claimed for work Mr. Li performed while self-represented because the evidentiary basis was insufficient.
Although the underlying appeal was straightforward, Ms. Narejko’s conduct unnecessarily prolonged and complicated both the appeal and the assessment. The Registrar held that the reasonable value of Mr. Li’s pro bono legal services remained recoverable as special costs. He also allowed the full $3,579.50 claimed for successfully resisting the disclosure application. Adding previously assessed ordinary costs, the Registrar issued a certificate of costs for $37,313.18. Ms. Narejko’s recusal request was refused because no informed person would reasonably apprehend bias from the Registrar’s past generic involvement with Access Pro Bono.
Key Takeaways
- Special costs compensate objectively proper or reasonably necessary legal expenses, not necessarily every actual expense claimed.
- Pro bono representation does not prevent a successful party from recovering special costs in British Columbia.
- A self-represented litigant’s inefficient conduct can increase recoverable costs, even though courts must provide appropriate procedural assistance.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that special-costs awards can encompass the reasonable value of pro bono services and costs incurred in proceedings necessary to assess those costs. It also illustrates that an appeal cannot be maintained for the collateral purpose of delaying the legal consequences of a divorce.
For counsel, the assessment underscores the need for detailed evidence supporting fees, disbursements, and any claim for self-represented work. For litigants, it signals that repeated delay and irrelevant or expansive litigation conduct may substantially increase a special-costs award.