October 18, 2021 – Court Orders: Not an Invitation to Dance

“The Court will not condone a game of “chicken” between Parties.

There must be consequences to a decision of a Party who is eminently able to comply with a court order to not do so.  An Order of the Court is not a suggestion.  It is not an invitation to a further negotiation.   The Respondent has no right to impose his own payment terms, because he is unhappy with the outcome of a motion.

As Howden J. noted in Lee v. Chang, 2013 CarswellOnt 18085 at para. 36,

A court order is not some invitation to dance which can simply be ignored or excused.  … Compliance with court orders is not optional.  Non-compliance with court orders, absent circumstances beyond the party’s control, must have consequences.  The court’s response to failure or refusal to comply without proper excuse must be strong and decisive.

In Levely v. Levely, [2013] O.J. No. 753, at paragraphs 12 and 13, Chappel J. made the following comments:

Family Court proceedings are intended to be a means by which aggrieved parties can have their disputes arising after separation adjudicated upon by the court in a just, efficient and timely manner.  Unfortunately, they all too often become a destructive tool which one party wields and manipulates in order to create further financial hardship for the other party. The frequency with which Family Law litigation degenerates into an abuse game of delay tactics, stonewalling, and dodging of judicial authority is a concern which must remain at the forefront of the judge’s mind in considering remedies for a party’s failure to participate as required in court proceedings or to comply with court orders.  Family Law litigants who come to the court for assistance must come with a strong sense of assurance that the process will be an effective means of mending and stabilizing the family fabric, rather than a futile money pit of failed justice.  The court has a critical responsibility and role to play in ensuring that proceedings which are intended to protect families and lead to a resolution of pressing and emotionally divisive issues are not hijacked by a party and transformed into a process for further victimizing the other party and children in their care.

The Rules referred to above are the main tools which a judge presiding over family law matters has in their toolbox to prevent a party from embarking on a game of litigation abuse.   The scope of these Rules must be interpreted broadly in order to protect the integrity of the court process and the beneficial intention of Family Law proceedings, and to ensure that parties who do respect the court system are able to achieve justice in a timely, affordable and emotionally respectful manner.   Judicial response to a party’s failure to respect the court process and court orders should be strong and decisive.  The judge should be as creative as necessary in crafting remedies so as to ensure that the noncompliance identified and the resulting damage to the other party are addressed as fully, justly and quickly as possible.”

Holly v. Greco, 2018 ONSC 6219 (CanLII) at 28-31