D. Jared Brown

The moving defendants sought to set aside a default judgment granted against them in January 2019 for failing to file a defence to the plaintiffs' action regarding unpaid real estate loans.

The court applied the three-part test from Hanratty v. Woods and found that the motion was not launched forthwith, the default was intentional, and the defendants failed to present a triable defence.

Relying heavily on text messages where the individual defendant personally guaranteed repayment, the court dismissed the motion to set aside the default judgment.

The employer brought a motion for partial summary judgment dismissing a former employee’s claims for unpaid bonuses on the basis that the claims were statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court examined the employment agreement and the employer’s bonus practices, finding the process for awarding bonuses was unilateral, opaque, and not explained to the employee.

The court held that the evidence did not clearly establish that the employee knew or ought to have known he had a claim more than two years before commencing the action.

The employer’s failure to disclose its interpretation of the bonus provisions and relevant sales information could amount to fraudulent concealment preventing the limitation period from running.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed.

The defendants moved to stay the plaintiffs' action for wrongful dismissal and oppression under the CBCA, arguing the dispute was subject to a broad arbitration clause in a unanimous shareholders agreement.

The plaintiffs argued the arbitration clause did not cover employment matters and that forcing arbitration would be oppressive.

The court applied the Mantini test, found the arbitration clause was broad enough to cover the dispute, and held that proceeding to arbitration would not be oppressive as all remedies sought could be pursued there.

The motion to stay the action was granted.