The respondent brought a motion to set aside a final family law order obtained by default after failing to file an Answer to an application.
The court considered whether the respondent acted promptly, whether he had a viable defence, whether the outcome might have differed, and whether he acted in good faith.
The evidence raised serious concerns about whether the application had been properly served, including deficiencies in the affidavit of service and conflicting evidence regarding who received the documents.
The court accepted that the respondent first learned of the order when his pension was garnished and found he acted promptly thereafter.
In the interests of justice, the default final order addressing property, custody, and support was set aside.
