Close-up of a man shaking hands while crossing his fingers behind his back, representing bad faith conduct and litigation misconduct in Ontario and BC
Date: June 11, 2026

Good Faith and Bad Faith in Litigation: What Courts in Ontario and BC Expect and How They Respond

Civil litigation is adversarial by design. Each side advocates for its own position, challenges the other's evidence, and uses the procedural tools available to advance its case. None of that is bad faith. What courts in Ontario and BC will not tolerate is something different: conduct that abuses the litigation process itself, whether by destroying evidence, misleading the court, filing proceedings for improper purposes, or using litigation as a weapon rather than as a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute.

The line between hard-nosed advocacy and bad faith matters because courts have real and significant power to sanction parties who cross it. Elevated cost awards, adverse inferences, struck pleadings, and punitive damages are all available where bad faith is established. This article explains what good faith in litigation actually requires, the specific conduct courts treat as bad faith, the consequences, and what to do when the other side is acting improperly. For an overview of how commercial litigation works in Ontario and BC, see our commercial litigation practice page.

The core distinction
Good faith in litigation means being honest with the court and opposing party, complying with procedural rules and court orders, and not using the litigation process for purposes other than the genuine resolution of the dispute. It does not mean being cooperative beyond what the rules require or abandoning legitimate tactical positions.

Bad faith is not simply losing a motion, making an argument the court rejects, or taking a position the other side considers unreasonable. It is conduct that corrupts the integrity of the proceeding itself: destroyed evidence, false statements to the court, proceedings brought purely to harass or delay, and deliberate non-compliance with orders that the court has already made.

What good faith in litigation requires

Courts in Ontario and BC apply consistent expectations of good faith conduct to all parties throughout civil proceedings. These expectations apply from before the claim is filed through to enforcement of any judgment.

Honest statements and filings All statements made in court documents, affidavits, and oral submissions must be accurate and not deliberately misleading. This applies to both positive statements and omissions: failing to disclose a material fact can be as damaging to credibility as making a false statement.
Complete and timely document disclosure Both Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure and BC's Supreme Court Civil Rules require parties to produce all relevant documents, including those adverse to their own case. Selective disclosure, deliberate omission, or unexplained gaps in production invite adverse inferences and cost consequences.
Evidence preservation Once litigation is contemplated or commenced, parties must preserve all potentially relevant documents and records. Destroying, altering, or deleting relevant evidence after a dispute has arisen exposes a party to adverse inferences and, in serious cases, sanctions that can affect the entire proceeding.
Compliance with court orders and deadlines Court orders are enforceable obligations, not suggestions. A pattern of non-compliance with court-ordered timelines or directions builds a record that courts treat seriously, as illustrated by decisions like Ferguson v. Yorkwest Plumbing Supply Inc., 2025 ONSC 5866, where chronic non-compliance resulted in a struck defence and default judgment.
Reasonable communication and response Courts expect parties to communicate with opposing counsel professionally and to respond to legitimate requests within reasonable timelines. Deliberate non-response, ghosting communications, or refusing to engage with procedural steps without justification is treated as bad faith conduct.
Proportionate use of procedural tools Motions, examinations, and other procedural steps should be used to advance the genuine resolution of the dispute, not to harass the other side, impose cost burdens, or delay a proceeding the party knows it cannot win on the merits. Courts are alert to the difference between legitimate tactical steps and abuse of process.

What courts treat as bad faith conduct

The following categories of conduct have been consistently identified by courts in Ontario and BC as bad faith litigation behaviour warranting sanction.

Destroying or altering evidence

Deleting emails, altering documents, destroying records, or tampering with evidence after a dispute has arisen is among the most serious forms of bad faith a party can engage in. Courts treat this as contemptuous of the judicial process and impose adverse inferences that can be decisive on contested issues. In serious cases, destroyed evidence can result in cost sanctions, struck pleadings, or even contempt findings.

Misleading the court or opposing counsel

False statements in affidavits or submissions, deliberate mischaracterizations of the evidence, and omissions of material facts from court filings all constitute bad faith. Courts that discover they have been misled respond seriously: the discovering party may have orders set aside, face adverse cost consequences, and lose credibility that affects how their evidence is treated throughout the proceeding.

Proceedings brought for improper purposes

Filing a claim, motion, or application not to resolve a genuine legal dispute but to harass the other party, impose costs, obtain leverage in an unrelated context, or delay an outcome the moving party cannot avoid on the merits is bad faith. Ontario's anti-SLAPP provision under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and BC's Protection of Public Participation Act specifically address one category of improper proceedings. Courts also have inherent jurisdiction to address abuse of process more broadly.

Deliberate non-compliance with court orders

A party that receives a court order and chooses to ignore it is not engaging in strategic delay: it is in contempt. Courts distinguish between a party that misses a deadline for genuine reasons and one that has demonstrated a pattern of deliberate non-compliance. The consequences of the latter can include struck pleadings and default judgment, as courts eventually run out of tolerance for parties who treat court orders as optional.

Meritless claims used as settlement pressure

Bringing a claim the party knows has no merit, not to obtain a genuine legal remedy but to pressure the other side into settling an unrelated dispute or paying something to make the litigation go away, is an abuse of process. Courts identify this pattern through the conduct of the proceedings: a party who pursues a meritless claim aggressively until the other side engages counsel and then seeks to discontinue without explanation often leaves a record that tells its own story.

Witness intimidation and obstructive conduct

Threatening witnesses, attempting to interfere with the other side's ability to gather evidence, or engaging in conduct designed to intimidate parties or their counsel is bad faith of a particularly serious kind. Courts can issue protective orders, make adverse cost awards, and in appropriate cases refer conduct to law enforcement or the relevant law society.

Pre-litigation conduct matters. Courts in Ontario and BC consider how parties behaved before proceedings were commenced when assessing credibility and awarding costs. A party who responded reasonably to pre-litigation concerns, preserved documents, and attempted resolution before filing starts the proceeding in a stronger credibility position than one who was obstructive from the outset.

Consequences of bad faith in Ontario and BC litigation

Courts have broad powers to sanction bad faith conduct and will use them where the conduct warrants it. The consequences are not merely procedural: they can fundamentally alter the financial and substantive outcome of the proceeding.

Elevated cost awards The most common consequence. Courts can award substantial indemnity costs, covering 75 to 90 percent of actual legal fees, rather than the usual partial indemnity costs. In serious cases, costs on a full indemnity basis may be awarded. Bad faith conduct during a motion or proceeding can also result in costs for that specific step being awarded on an elevated basis even where overall costs are otherwise at partial indemnity.
Adverse inferences Where evidence has been withheld or destroyed, courts assume it would have been harmful to the concealing party. This inference can be applied to specific issues or, in serious cases, can affect the credibility of the party's entire evidentiary case. Adverse inferences are particularly powerful where the destroyed evidence goes to a central contested issue.
Struck pleadings and dismissal In serious cases courts can strike pleadings, dismiss the claim or defence entirely, or bar the offending party from further steps until they comply with outstanding obligations. These sanctions are reserved for the most egregious conduct but courts have shown they will use them where the record justifies it.
Punitive damages Where the bad faith conduct constitutes an independent actionable wrong that is malicious, oppressive, or high-handed, punitive damages can be awarded in addition to compensatory damages. These are available in appropriate defamation, oppression remedy, fiduciary duty breach, and fraud cases where the conduct warrants denunciation beyond compensation.
Public judicial criticism Courts' written reasons are public documents. A judge who identifies bad faith conduct will say so in their reasons. For businesses and professionals, this kind of public judicial criticism can cause reputational damage that extends well beyond the litigation itself.
Contempt findings Where a party deliberately fails to comply with a court order, they can be found in contempt. Contempt findings can result in fines, seizure of assets, and in serious cases imprisonment. Non-compliance with injunctions is the most common context for contempt proceedings in commercial litigation.

The other side is withholding documents, missing deadlines without explanation, or appears to be destroying evidence?

Document the conduct carefully and get legal advice on whether to seek a court order for preservation, compelled disclosure, or cost sanctions. Courts intervene when bad faith is properly documented, but the record needs to be built before relief can be sought. Act before the damage compounds.

Call: 1-800-771-7882 Get Advice on the Other Side's Conduct

How to protect yourself when the other side acts in bad faith

Where the other side is engaging in bad faith conduct, the response needs to be strategic and documented rather than reactive and emotional. Courts respond to misconduct that is properly on the record: misconduct that has not been documented or formally raised does not produce relief.

  • Switch to writing immediately. If the other side is behaving improperly in verbal communications, move everything to writing. An email that captures what was said in a phone call, sent promptly after the call, creates a contemporaneous record that is significantly more useful than a later affidavit about what was said.
  • Preserve all communications and documents. Save every email, text, and record. Bad faith conduct generates its own evidentiary trail if it is preserved. Deleted messages and altered documents can often be recovered forensically, but the process is much more difficult and expensive than simply preserving what you have.
  • Keep a log. A running log of incidents, missed deadlines, and obstructive conduct with dates and specifics is valuable evidence for cost motions and applications for court orders. Courts respond to patterns, and a log that documents the pattern is more persuasive than a narrative account from memory.
  • Avoid reacting emotionally. Bad faith conduct is sometimes designed to provoke a response that itself looks like misconduct. Responding to provocation in kind gives the other side ammunition and dilutes the impact of their own conduct. A calm, documented record of the other side's behaviour is more powerful than an exchange of mutual accusations.
  • Raise the issue formally at the right time. Not every instance of bad faith warrants an immediate motion. Choosing the right moment to bring the conduct to the court's attention, with a full and well-documented record, produces better results than piecemeal applications that are raised too early and insufficiently supported.

Facing bad faith conduct in Ontario or BC litigation that is affecting your ability to present your case or enforce your rights?

Courts have real tools to address improper conduct, but those tools only work when the misconduct is properly documented and formally raised. Get advice on the right approach for your situation.

Get Advice on Your Litigation Strategy Or call us: 1-800-771-7882

Practical takeaways

Good faith in litigation means being honest with the court, complying with procedural rules and court orders, and not using the litigation process for purposes other than the genuine resolution of the dispute. It does not mean being cooperative beyond what the rules require.
Bad faith conduct includes destroying evidence, misleading the court, bringing proceedings for improper purposes, deliberate non-compliance with court orders, and using litigation as a weapon rather than as a genuine dispute resolution mechanism.
Consequences of bad faith in Ontario and BC include elevated cost awards at substantial indemnity rates, adverse inferences from withheld or destroyed evidence, struck pleadings, punitive damages in appropriate cases, and public judicial criticism in written reasons.
Pre-litigation conduct matters. Courts consider how parties behaved before proceedings were commenced when assessing credibility and awarding costs. A party who acted reasonably before litigation starts the proceeding in a stronger position.
When the other side acts in bad faith, document everything in writing, preserve all communications, keep a log of incidents, and get legal advice on the right time to formally raise the conduct with the court. Reactions in kind dilute the impact of the other side's misconduct.
Courts have broad powers to sanction bad faith but only use them when the conduct is properly documented and formally raised. Building the record before seeking relief is essential to obtaining it.

Frequently asked questions

What does good faith mean in litigation in Ontario and BC?

Good faith means acting honestly, following procedural rules, complying with court orders, providing complete disclosure, preserving evidence, and avoiding tactics designed purely to delay or frustrate the other side. Courts in both provinces do not require parties to agree with each other or cooperate beyond what the rules require, but they do require honesty and procedural compliance from all parties throughout the proceeding.

What is bad faith litigation conduct in Ontario and BC?

Bad faith conduct includes destroying or altering evidence, deliberately withholding required documents, misleading the court or opposing counsel, filing claims or motions for improper purposes such as harassment or delay, ignoring court orders, and using litigation as a weapon to pressure settlement of a meritless claim. Courts in both provinces treat this conduct seriously and have broad sanctioning powers.

What are the consequences of bad faith in Ontario and BC civil litigation?

Consequences include elevated cost awards at substantial indemnity rates covering 75 to 90 percent of actual legal fees; adverse inferences where destroyed or withheld evidence is assumed to have been harmful; striking of pleadings or dismissal of the claim or defence in serious cases; punitive damages in appropriate cases; and public judicial criticism in written reasons for decision.

What should I do if the other party is acting in bad faith in my litigation?

Document the conduct immediately: switch to written communications, preserve all records, and keep a log of incidents with dates and specifics. Avoid reacting emotionally. Consult litigation counsel on whether to seek a court order for document preservation, compelled disclosure, or cost sanctions. Courts intervene when bad faith is properly documented, but the record needs to be built before relief can be sought.

Can pre-litigation conduct affect costs and credibility in Ontario and BC?

Yes. Courts consider a party's conduct before proceedings were commenced when assessing credibility and awarding costs. A party who responded reasonably to pre-litigation concerns, preserved documents, and attempted resolution before filing starts in a stronger credibility position than one who was obstructive or evasive from the outset.

Dealing with bad faith conduct in Ontario or BC litigation that is undermining your case? Tell us what's happening.

Whether the other side is withholding documents, missing deadlines without justification, threatening witnesses, or using the litigation process to harass rather than resolve a genuine dispute, Achkar Law advises businesses and individuals across Ontario and British Columbia on commercial litigation strategy at every stage. We will assess the conduct, advise on when and how to raise it formally, and make sure the record supports the relief you need.

Call us at 1-800-771-7882 or fill out the form below and we will be in touch.