Severance of Court actions joined together may occur in civil litigation.
The Public Guardian and Trustee for BC v Johnston 2016 BCSC 1388 has an excellent review of the law as to when the courts will order that court actions be severed from the other and heard separately.
This decision was upheld by the BCCA in 2017 BCCA 59.
In that action there were claims that the will was invalid and alternatively in the same action , that if the will was valid, that it should then be varied as per wills variation provisions.
The application was to sever the two claims from the other and the court ordered that the trial firstly be held on whether the will is valid, and then after that trial, if necessary, the wills variation claim would be tried.
(6) If a joinder of several claims or parties in a proceeding may unduly complicate or delay the trial or hearing of the proceeding or is otherwise inconvenient, the court may order separate trials or hearings or make any other order it considers will further the object of these Supreme Court Civil Rules.
Separating counterclaim or third party claims
(7) If a counterclaim or a third party proceeding ought to be disposed of by a separate proceeding, the court may so order.
 The key factors engaged in a general sense on an application to sever were canvassed in Schaper v. Sears Canada, 2000 BCSC 1575 (CanLII) [Schaper] at para. 19:
- …the party making the request must show that hearing the claims together would unduly complicate, delay the hearing, or otherwise be inconvenient. If a party applying does not meet this threshold, the court need not go further in any analysis and the application should be dismissed.
- Have the actions of any party in the proceeding been unreasonable and have they contributed to the complication, the delay, or the inconvenience alleged by the party applying? If this found, that would strengthen the argument to sever.
- Are the issues between the plaintiff and defendant and the issues between the defendant and the third party sufficiently distinct so as to allow them to be tried separately? If so, that strengthens the argument to sever off third party proceeding.
- Is the relief claimed by, or the potential obligation of, any party best determined by hearing the evidence of all parties at one hearing? If so, that weakens an application to sever.
- Does the prejudice to the party applying, prejudice based on undue complication, delay or inconvenience, outweigh any benefit of matters being heard together, or outweigh any considerations related to the overall objective of the rules to ensure a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits, including the avoidance of a multiplicity of proceedings for the benefits of litigants and having concern to congestion in the courts generally?
 Guidelines that focused attention more keenly on the efficacy of the trial process were helpfully laid out in O’Mara v. Son, Kim et al., 2007 BCSC 871 (CanLII) [O’Mara] at para. 23:
- whether the order sought will create a saving in pre-trial procedures;
- whether there will be a real reduction in the number of trial days taken up by the trial being heard at the same trial;
- whether a party may be seriously inconvenienced by being required to attend a trial in which the party may have a marginal interest;
- whether there will be a real saving in expert’s time and witness fees;
- whether one of the actions is at a more advanced stage than the other;
- whether the order sought will result in delay of the trial of any one of the actions and, if so, whether any prejudice which a party might suffer as a result of that delay outweighs the potential benefits which a consolidated trial might otherwise have;
- the possibility of inconsistent findings and common issues resulting from separate trials.
 Severance may well be appropriate where the determination of one issue will render another one moot: Lawrence v. ICBC, 2001 BCSC 1530 (CanLII) [Lawrence].
 The judicial discretion to sever trials or hearings is to be exercised sparingly: Morrison‑Knudsen Co. v. British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority, 1972 Carswell B.C. 62, 24 D.L.R. (3d) 579 (S.C.); Lawrence at para. 43. The test for severance is not applied in a vacuum; it is to be considered against the backdrop of the nature of the particular case at hand: Wirtz v. Constantini, 1982 CanLII 282 (BC SC), 137 D.L.R. (3d) 393, 1982 CarswellBC 588 (S.C.). Because the determination involves an individualized assessment of the unique case before the Court, there is no closed list of uniformly applied considerations that inform the exercise of the Court’s discretion.