“When a party fails to comply with a court order, Family Law Rule 1(8) gives the court the power to make “any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter”. This includes an order striking the pleading.
A pleading should only be struck in circumstances that are “exceptional and egregious”.
As the court stated in Manchanda v. Thethi, 2016 ONCA 909 at para. 13, the obligation to disclose financial information is the most basic obligation in a family law proceeding. The obligation is strict, immediate and ongoing. A party’s non-compliance must be considered in the context of this strict financial disclosure obligation. Rule 1(8) provides the court with the authority to strike claims. A party who chooses “not to disclose financial information or to ignore court orders will be at risk of losing their standing in the proceedings as their claims or answers to claims may be struck.”
In Roberts v. Roberts, 2015 ONCA 450 at para.12, the court warned that the “[f]ailure to abide by this fundamental principle impedes the progress of the action, causes delay and generally acts to the disadvantage of the opposite party. It also impacts the administration of justice. Unnecessary judicial time is spent and the final adjudication is stalled.” Further, it should not be necessary to issue court orders to obtain compliance with this immediate obligation.
In Norris vs. Norris, 2019 ONSC 2795 at para 20 the court set out a three-step test governing the exercise of judicial discretion to strike a party’s pleadings:
-
-
-
-
- Is there a triggering event justifying the striking of pleadings?
- Is it appropriate to strike the pleadings in the circumstances of the case?
- Are there other remedies in lieu of striking pleadings that might suffice?”
-
-
-