“As stated in Manchanda v. Thethi, 2016 ONSC 3776 (CanLII), 2016 CarswellOnt 8951 (S.C.J.) “Without enforcement of the primary objective, a party can frustrate the civil justice system’s goals of efficiency, affordability, proportionality, and fairness, by making the process slow, expensive, and distressful.” The Court of Appeal held that striking of pleadings is not reserved for drastic and extreme cases” (2016 ONCA 909).
In Lamothe v. Ellis (2021 ONSC 4883, at para 42), the court struck the Respondent’s pleadings due to his chronic and persistent disregard of court orders. Chozik J. considered the following five factors in determining whether it was appropriate to strike the Respondent’s pleadings:
(a) That the Respondent’s non-compliance is extensive and persistent;
(b) That his non-compliance is willful in nature;
(c) That the Respondent has not made any reasonable efforts to comply with the court orders and is unable to provide acceptable explanations for the breaches;
(d) That in claiming that he is financially unable to pay the costs awards and minimal child support, the Respondent has not provided adequate financial disclosure to the Applicant or the underlying documentations that would allow her (and the court) to make adequate determinations as to his income and employment; and
(e) That the remedy must not go beyond that which is necessary to express the court’s disapproval of the conduct in issue and must be proportionate to the issues in question and the conduct of the Respondent: Lamothe v. Ellis, 2021 ONSC 4883, at para 42.”