Yes No Share to Facebook
Failing to Obey an Order: The Lack of Compliance With a Judicial Mandate
Question: What happens if I miss a court-mandated deadline in Ontario?
Answer: While adherence to deadlines is essential in the legal process, courts in Ontario may allow some flexibility for unexpected circumstances. The judiciary prioritises fairness and may evaluate whether the delay caused actual prejudice to the opposing party, potentially allowing for the correction of procedural missteps to ensure justice is served. For tailored guidance on your situation, consider reaching out for a consultation.
Expectations and Exceptions for Obeying an Order Containing Timelines
The integrity of the legal process relies upon strict adherence to procedural rules and judicial orders; however, the justice system recognizes that, on occasion, circumstances may arise that prevent flawless compliance. Although the goal remains the timely and orderly advancement of litigation, courts continue to balance the enforcement of procedural expectations with the overarching imperative of resolving matters on the merits..
Procedural Compliance Expectation
Timelines prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194, or the Rules of the Small Claims Court, O. Reg. 258/98, or established through an Order of the Court are more than mere suggestions. Indeed the Rules or directions within an Order, serve as the procedural scaffolding upon which the orderly administration of justice is built. Delays, omissions, or failures in meeting the prescribed or mandated timelines can lead to severe consequences, including dismissal of a claim or defence; however, the judiciary has demonstrated a commitment to context-sensitive reasoning when assessing the consequences of failures in procedural compliance.
The Law
In the case of Ann Lamb v. Bank of Montreal, et al, 2013 ONSC 6404, the Superior Court reaffirmed this careful approach. The court, drawing from Finlay v. Paassen, 2010 ONCA 204, emphasized that timelines should be respected, yet acknowledged that "some latitude" may be appropriate where "unexpected and unusual contingencies" interfere with compliance. This sentiment reflects a judicial preference for substantive fairness over rigid formality. Specifically in the Ann Lamb case it was said:
[26] Timelines imposed by the Rules of Civil Procedure or judicial orders should be complied with although the court should allow some latitude for unexpected and unusual contingencies that make it difficult or impossible for a party to comply with. Technical noncompliance should not penalize the parties and frustrate the fundamental goal of resolving disputes on their merits. The rules and procedural orders are to be construed in a way that advances the interests of justice. Finlay v. Paassen, 2010 ONCA 204.
Potential Prejudice Concerns
The concept of prejudice remains central in determining whether procedural failure should result in substantive consequences. Courts consider whether the delay has compromised the ability of the opposing party to present a case or whether the failure to follow timelines has otherwise harmed the fairness of the proceedings. As illustrated in the case of Ampscon Inc. v. Melloul-Blamey Construction Inc., 2018 ONSC 7046, the evaluation of prejudice involves the weighing of various factors. Specifically, in Ampscon, it was stated:
[26] I agree that “prejudice is inherent in long delays”, as was held by Justice C. F de Sa in Papp Plastics & Distributing Ltd. v. Unity Insurance Brokers (Windsor) Ltd., 2018 ONSC 5009. Yet in this case, again, even taking the overall period, the total timeline is only five years. Half a decade is again not the type of delay I find to be inherently prejudicial. In any case, from 2013 to 2017, both parties accepted the dormancy. That time period thus is not particularly relevant. The actual period of delay to which the defendant objected (only after the dismissal by the Registrar and in response to this motion by the plaintiff) is again quite minimal—involving months, not years. As I find no “long delay” in this case, there is no inherent prejudice.
[27] While the plaintiff’s representative’s affidavit simply disavowed the likelihood of prejudice, that lack of specificity in and of itself does not condemn the affidavit as inadequate. After all, it is hard to see how the other side would be prejudiced on the facts of this case as I have reviewed them in these reasons. Moreover, as the Fuller decision makes clear, the plaintiff does not fail to rebut the presumption of prejudice “simply because he or she does not adduce affirmative evidence”. As Justice Weiler further explained, I must “consider all of the circumstances” in deciding whether there is likely to be prejudice on these particular facts, and in these particular circumstances.
[28] In this case I find the explanation for the minor and not unusual amount of delay on the part of the plaintiff to be reasonable. The non-compliance, which led to the dismissal by the Registrar, while unfortunate, I find has been explained. This was the first, and hopefully will be the only, time this matter was dismissed, unlike other cases which involved far longer delay. In those cases, such longer delay would inherently lead to prejudice being assumed (however, even then, in appropriate cases the dismissal was overturned). Yet those are not the facts before me in this case.
[29] Weighing the facts and evidence, applying my discretion, and favouring the disposition of matters on the merits of them, I do not find the defendant likely to be prejudiced by this case proceeding further. Rather, and as I have discussed, the defendant maintains its rights in the ongoing conduct of this litigation, and can oblige the plaintiff to prove its case. The defendant would, on the facts of this matter, be well able to make full answer and defence to the claim.
As per the Ampscon case, a five-year overall delay where both parties tacitly accepted periods of dormancy failed to constitute as inherently prejudicial conduct. Furthermore, the court observed that the actual period contested involved only months and found this to be a “minor and not unusual” delay.
Judicial Discretion
While an Order of the Court demands obedience, judicial discretion ensures that procedural enforcement avoids interfering with substantive justice. The ruling in Ampscon underscored that even where a failure of compliance leads to a case dismissal, reinstatement remains possible upon a satisfactory explanation. The explanation offered in the Ampscon matter was accepted as reasonable, and the failure to comply, although “unfortunate,” was viewed in context. The court noted that, unlike other cases with protracted and repeated delays, this incident stood alone.
The philosophy in Ampscon speaks to the dual role of the judiciary: enforcing procedural discipline while also ensuring equitable access to justice. The goal remains to avoid penalizing technical missteps, especially where the consequences would outweigh the infraction in severity and where resolution on the merits remains viable and just.:
Conclusion
Obedience to an Order of the Court remains a cornerstone of the legal process; however, litigants should recognize that the courts approach non-compliance with procedural sensitivity. The emphasis lies in determining whether the lapse was significant, whether the delay caused actual prejudice, and whether the explanation is reasonable in the full context of the case.
Where an Order is unfollowed, the responsible party is expected to take corrective steps promptly and to present a full and honest explanation to the court. In many cases, courts will assess such failures within the broad context of promoting justice, ensuring fairness, and maintaining confidence in the legal process.