Andrew M. Baerg

The defendant Roberts Bros.

Sheet Metal Contractors Ltd. (RBSMC) brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and permit the filing of a statement of defence and crossclaim.

The court declined to sign the requested order because RBSMC failed to comply with Rule 37.12.1(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a notice of non-opposition from all responding parties for an "unopposed" motion to proceed in writing.

The court emphasized that co-defendants are also affected parties, particularly when crossclaims are contemplated, and their formal non-opposition is necessary, unlike the simpler procedure under Rule 19.03(2) which relies solely on plaintiff consent.

The court provided guidance on alternative procedural routes for RBSMC to pursue the motion.

In ongoing commercial litigation involving claims and counterclaims among several corporate and individual parties, the court issued a procedural endorsement concerning the filing of costs submissions.

The judge directed counsel for the principal parties to appear before the court to address issues relating to how costs submissions should be filed in the matter.

The endorsement did not determine entitlement to costs but required counsel to attend and address the procedural issue before the court.

The defendants by counterclaim moved to set aside a noting in default, a default judgment for $806,000, and writs of execution obtained by the plaintiff by counterclaim.

The court considered the test under the Rules of Civil Procedure for setting aside default judgments, requiring prompt action, a plausible explanation for the default, and an arguable defence on the merits.

The court found the moving parties acted expeditiously after discovering the default, that the failure to respond resulted from an oversight where a warning letter was mistakenly filed before counsel reviewed it during ongoing settlement discussions, and that there was an arguable defence tied to allegations of breach of non‑compete obligations.

The court also found it unreasonable for opposing counsel to obtain default judgment and execute writs without effective notice while engaged with counsel for the moving parties.

In the interests of justice, the default judgment was set aside and the writs withdrawn.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s $4.5 million action alleging that corporate sponsors of a soccer association owed a duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage for players, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs following a Rule 21 motion that terminated the claim at an early stage.

The court held that while the defendants were entitled to significant costs, the hours claimed by counsel were excessive and involved duplication of work.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the requested amounts and fixed reasonable costs payable to the successful defendants.

The defendants, corporate sponsors of a soccer organization, brought a motion under rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike a negligence claim arising from a catastrophic soccer injury.

The plaintiff alleged the sponsors had a duty of care to ensure that the organization maintained adequate insurance coverage for players.

The court held that mere financial sponsorship and advertising relationships do not create a proximate relationship giving rise to a duty of care to participants.

The pleadings failed to establish reliance, proximity, or control over the event or insurance arrangements.

The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck.