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.
