The moving party brought a motion for default judgment against all defendants except one who had defended the action.
A co-defendant objected to judgment against one of the undefended defendants on the basis that it might conflict with findings made in a related family law proceeding, where the trial judge had rejected the existence of an unregistered mortgage in favour of the plaintiff.
The court found that the consenting defendant's failure to defend and consent to judgment was operative against him personally, and that it did not bind the defending co-defendant.
Judgment was granted against the consenting defendant without prejudice to the defending defendant's right to crossclaim, move to stay enforcement, or oppose recognition of the debt in any bankruptcy proceeding.
