“In hockey, repeatedly “ragging the puck” will garner a penalty for delay of game. Ignoring the officials will also accrue negative consequences to the offending player. In family law litigation, some parties regrettably choose to engage in similar tactics. But family disputes are not a game. They involve the lives and vital interests of real people. This concern becomes particularly acute when there are children involved.
The Family Law Rules are intended to promote fairness and efficiency in dealing with disputes that come before the Courts. The Parties are often given multiple chances to do what they ought to have done in the first instance. Sometimes failure to comply with orders of the Court arises because one of the parties struggles with very limited financial resources. In other cases, however, Parties who are possessed of financial means that would be the envy of the great majority of persons who come before the Court in family law cases choose to cynically game the system.
Judges are (rightly) patient. They are slow to invoke the more drastic remedies provided for in Rule 1(8). The appellate jurisprudence understandably counsels patience and caution in this regard.
However, there comes a time when judicial patience cannot be infinite. This is particularly so when it is evident that one of the parties is acting in cynical noncompliance with court orders, or is banking on judicial patience and indulgence to “rag the puck” and conduct a campaign of attrition against the other party. That is the case in this case.”