What Happens if There’s a Failure to Obey a Court Order?

Since the court and the parties each have a duty to promote the Rules’ primary objective of dealing with cases justly, it’s not surprising that there are potential sanctions for failing to do so.  In particular, if a person fails to follow the Rules, or fails to abide by a court order, then the court can deal with it by making another order to encourage or compel compliance.

What Kind of Order Can be Made, in Response to Non-Compliance?

Rule 1(8.1)) – and as Rule 1(8) specifies, that order can be for whatever it  considers “necessary for a just determination of the matter”. This includes making an order for costs, or an order to pay a penalty or fine.  It can strike out pleadings, bar a party from obtaining any further orders, dismiss the case, or postpone the trial. Among other things.

The relief set out in Rule 1(8) can be procedural and substantive. The itemized list is inclusive, not exclusive (K.M. v. J.R., 2024 ONSC 1338).

 

If the court orders a party’s pleadings to be struck out, this prevents that party from taking any further steps, or participating in the case in any way.  The court can proceed with the case in the party’s absence.

What Kind of Orders Can the  Court Make?

Given this broad mandate to make an order, courts can be creative.

A recent case Nguyen v. Hollmeyer, 2025 ONSC 1682 confirms that there should be a “broad and purposeful” interpretation on the type of orders a court can make under Rule 1(8).  The court has a very broad discretion to make an order that the court considers necessary to compel the party into compliance (Bouchard v. Sgovio, [2021] ONCA 709).

The court can make an order that assists in enforcing Family Law agreements or parenting schedule, or even helps enforce a court order from another country. (Nguyen v. Hollmeyer, 2025 ONSC 1682).

In a case called Bouchard v. Sgovio, [2021] ONCA 709 the court had ordered the parents to have a 50-f50 parenting schedule in connection with their child.  However, the father failed or refused to facilitate the child’s resumed access to the mother, and included what the court called efforts to “sabotage” or “actively undermine” the therapy that had been ordered to facilitate the child’s reunification with his mother.

In light of that ongoing non-compliance by the father, the lower court ordered that the child should be placed on an extended visit with his mother on a temporary basis, and to authorize her to obtain treatment for herself and the children that is necessary to reverse the harm that has been caused to the child as a result of his father’s refusal or inability to comply with the prior order.

What Orders Can the Court Make?

A set of recent Ontario cases really shines a light on how Rule 1(8) operates.  Here are the key points:

• When a party breaches an order, two independent enforcement options may be available: 1) a contempt motion (under Rule 31); or 2) enforcement under Rule 1(8), which gives the court “considerable latitude” in how it responds to non-compliance with court orders (M. v. J.R., 2024 ONSC 1338)
• A court can make any order it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter. (Bouchard v. Sgovio, 2021 ONCA 709; S-L.T. v. M.L., 2023 ONSC 5551; v. M, 2023 ONSC 5778.
• As long as the substantive remedy is tied to the original breached order, the court can fashion a remedy that will encourage compliance of it. (Bouchard v. Sgovio, 2021 ONCA 709; M. v. J.R., 2024 ONSC 1338.
• This discretion by the court is especially important when the wellbeing of the children is in issue. (Bouchard v. Sgovio, 2021 ONCA 709).
• This type of order can be made “at any time during a case” (Villeneuve v. Wilson, 2022 ONSC 2886 (SCJ)).
• The order must take into account the primary objective of the Rule, which is to deal with a case justly.

 

How Do you Get an Order Like This, Under Rule 1(8)?

If you are faced with an Ex who has not complied with a prior order, then the court will engage in a three-step analysis. (Mullin v. Sherlock, 2018 ONCA 1063; Lamothe v. Ellis, 2021 ONSC 4883; Raisfirooz v. Dajmar, 2022 ONSC 5382).

• Step 1: The court determine whether there is a triggering event, meaning the non-compliance with a court order in the case, or in a related case.  It does not matter who obtained the order in the first place. (J. v. E.J., 2021 ONSC 4853)
• Step 2: The court determines whether it should exercise its discretion in the non-compliant party’s favour – by not sanctioning him or her. It falls to that non-compliant party to persuade the court, but it will only happen in exceptional circumstances (Pearce v. Kisoon, 2019 ONSC 4389; Antunes v. Antunes, 2022 ONSC 6450).
• Step 3: The court will look at the relevant history of the litigation, and especially the non-compliant party’s conduct. (Pearce v. Kisoon, 2019 ONSC 4389).

If the court decides to proceed with making an order nonetheless, then it has a very broad discretion to fashion an appropriate remedy under Rule 1(8) (Oliver v Oliver, 2020 ONSC 2321; C. v. S, 2023 ONSC 2551). Relevant considerations include:

• The proportionality of the sanction to the wrongdoing;
• The similarity of sanctions in like circumstances;
• The presence of mitigating factors;
• The presence of aggravating factors;

(C.J. v. E.J., 2021 ONSC 4853; Teixeira v. Teixeira, 2022 ONSC 6133).