Bryan D. Hackett

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In the interests of justice, the default judgment was set aside and the writs withdrawn.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a 1973 decision and certificate of accreditation to amend the name of the accredited employers' organization, clarify the geographic scope, and exclude the low-rise part of the residential sector of the construction industry.

The Board found that the current bargaining structure, the consent of the respondent union, and the position of the Mechanical Contractors Association Toronto justified the variation.

The Board noted that the accredited employers' organization had abandoned its bargaining rights in respect of the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board varied the decision and certificate accordingly.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for a group of employers in the construction industry.

The Board found the applicant to be a properly constituted employers' organization with the necessary authority to act as an accredited bargaining agent.

The parties agreed on a bargaining unit description that segregated the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board determined that, given the existing pattern of collective bargaining and the abandonment of bargaining rights by other associations in this specific sub-sector, there were clear and compelling reasons to divide the residential sector.

The Board approved the agreed-upon unit of employers as appropriate for collective bargaining.