3 total
The court struck the defendants' deficient pleadings with leave to amend and awarded costs for an abandoned transfer motion.
The applicants, Erica and Geoff Chovaz, brought motions to strike the pleadings of the respondents, 7120761 Canada Inc., Daniel St. Jean, and Laurel Simmons (collectively "712 group"), in both Superior Court and Small Claims Court actions, alleging non-compliance with pleading rules.
The Chovazs also sought costs for 712 group's abandoned motion to transfer the Small Claims action to Superior Court.
The court granted the motions to strike, finding significant deficiencies in 712 group's pleadings, including lack of clarity regarding causes of action, misrepresentation elements, and damages.
Leave was granted to file amended pleadings.
The court also awarded costs to the Chovazs for the abandoned transfer motion, citing 712 group's problematic litigation conduct.
Motion to enforce settlement dismissed as parties lacked a meeting of the minds on release scope.
The parties executed minutes of settlement following a pretrial conference, which required the exchange of a mutual release.
The moving party sought a general release barring all claims, including a private criminal information, while the responding parties sought a release limited to the civil action.
The court found there was no meeting of the minds regarding the scope of the release, as the responding party secretly intended to pursue criminal charges.
The motion to approve either draft release was dismissed, and the action was ordered restored to the trial list if no agreement could be reached.
Default judgment upheld; defendants failed to show a triable defence.
The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment exceeding $280,000 obtained for unpaid deliveries of worms supplied to a bait wholesaler.
The court considered the established factors for setting aside default judgment: promptness of the motion, explanation for the default, and the existence of a triable defence.
Although the motion was brought relatively shortly after the defendants learned of the judgment, the defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to defend the action and produced no documentary evidence supporting alleged set‑offs or adjustments to the debt.
The court found the alleged defence consisted of unsupported assertions lacking an air of reality.
Considering the integrity of the administration of justice, the court refused to exercise its discretion to set aside the default judgment.
