No right, no wrong. No rules for me. I’m free!
(Frozen, Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, 2013).
It is quite fortunate that Elsa, esteemed Protector of the Enchanted Forest and former Queen to the Arendelle throne, had not made such a defiantly brazen statement in a Canadian courtroom. Indeed, had she done so, she would have been admonished as Courts in this jurisdiction have consistently averred that their Orders are not mere “suggestions,” “frameworks” or “guidelines.”
Alas, for the Appellant in Crowley v. Crowley, 2025 ONCA 157 (“Crowley“), he experienced firsthand that compliance with Court Orders is mandatory. His repeated failure to do so meant that the Court was justified in dismissing his legal proceedings under the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules“).
In Crowley, the Appellant’s application challenging the validity of the will of his deceased mother was dismissed for failure to comply with a prior Court Order that required the Appellant to serve a notice of change of solicitor or a notice of intention to act in person within 30 days. The Appellant sought to appeal the dismissal, relying largely on the merits of his underlying Application.
Dismissing the appeal in its entirety, the Court pointed out that the Appellant’s Application had not been dismissed for delay, but had been dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 15.04(8) of the Rules:
(8) A client who is not a corporation shall, within 30 days after being served with the order removing the lawyer from the record,
(a) appoint a new lawyer of record by serving a notice under subrule 15.03 (2); or
(b) serve a notice of intention to act in person under subrule 15.03 (3).
(9) If the client fails to comply with subrule (8),
(a) the court may dismiss the client’s proceeding or strike out his or her defence . . .
While this result may seem unduly harsh, especially for a self-represented litigant, the Court remarked that the Appellant had failed to serve a notice of change of solicitor or a notice of intention to act in person within the specified time, which was part of a pattern of ongoing delay and non-compliance with prior court orders: “[the Appellant] had fair warning that non-compliance could lead to a dismissal of his application. He has engaged in a pattern of delay and non-compliance. Finally, this ongoing delay is prejudicial to the respondents, who have been waiting for a long time to finalize the distribution of the estate.”