C. Raphael

The self-represented defendant requested a case conference to dispute a recently signed consent order dismissing the action, alleging he did not agree to waive the 30-day appeal period and accusing plaintiff's counsel of switching signature pages and the court of bias.

The court maintained that the signed consent was valid and the order had been entered.

The court directed the defendant to bring a formal motion on notice if he wished to set aside the order.

The parties reached a settlement following a trial management conference and submitted a consent to a dismissal order.

The court initially rejected the consent due to issues with legal representation for the corporate defendants.

After receiving confirmation that the self-represented individual defendant had filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person and that counsel of record had executed the consent for the corporate defendants, the court granted the consent order dismissing the action and directing the payout of $1,000,000 held as security.

At a trial management conference, the self-represented defendant requested an adjournment of the peremptory trial date, citing medical issues and lack of counsel.

The court declined to entertain the request without a formal motion on notice.

The court also ordered counsel of record for the corporate defendants, who failed to attend the conference without explanation, to appear at the commencement of trial to show cause why costs should not be awarded against him personally.

The defendants successfully moved to discharge two construction liens from their property, while issues regarding the Limitations Act were left to trial.

The court determined costs for the motion.

The court found the defendants were the successful parties, as they succeeded on the bulk of the issues that consumed the most court time.

The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendants should have simply posted bonds, noting that the plaintiff's liens were without merit and the defendants were entitled to seek their removal.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs of $21,253.34 on a partial indemnity basis, with costs for the limitations issue fixed at $3,000 in the cause.

The defendants, Aragon and the Town of Mono, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff engineering firm's claims for unpaid invoices and to discharge construction liens registered against their properties.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding the unpaid invoices, finding that the limitation period issue required a trial.

However, the court granted the motion to discharge the construction liens, concluding that the liens had expired because the work performed within the 45 days prior to registration was administrative and deficiency-related, which does not extend the time for preserving a lien.

The corporate plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to permit its president, who was not a lawyer, to represent the corporation in a construction lien action and also sought to set aside a noting in default on a counterclaim.

The court held that a corporation must normally be represented by counsel and that leave for non-lawyer representation requires evidence both of financial inability to retain counsel and of the proposed representative’s ability to conduct the litigation.

The court found the evidence of financial inability inadequate and concluded the proposed representative’s conduct demonstrated he was incapable of responsibly managing complex civil litigation.

The court further held that under s. 54 of the Construction Lien Act a defendant seeking to set aside default must provide evidence of a meritorious defence.

Because no such evidence was provided, the motion to set aside the default was dismissed with prejudice.