Harold Siegmar Albrecht

The appellant appealed from an order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment in a land banking fraud scheme.

The appellant was served with the Statement of Claim on March 5, 2014, but took no steps to defend and was noted in default on August 1, 2014.

After an undefended trial, judgment was rendered against him for fraudulent misrepresentation in the amount of $276,031.06 plus pre-judgment interest, punitive damages of $25,000, and costs of $25,000.

The appellant did not learn of the judgment until September 15, 2016.

The motion judge refused to set aside the default judgment, finding that the appellant provided an inadequate explanation for his default, consciously decided not to participate, had no arguable defence on the merits, and that setting aside the judgment would undermine the integrity of the justice system.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

The defendants were charged with six counts of contravening section 154 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) for importing motor scooters from China that violated emissions standards and lacked proper documentation.

The Crown alleged the defendants failed to comply with conditions requiring evidence of conformity and adherence to prescribed emissions standards.

The defendants argued they exercised due diligence by hiring compliance consultants, obtaining manufacturer assurances, and relying on EPA certification.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the actus reus for counts 1-3 (documentation violations) and that the defendants established due diligence as a defence for counts 4-6 (emissions violations).

All charges were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for an interim interlocutory injunction seeking to preserve rights under a motor fuel supply agreement with the defendants.

The agreement permitted termination without notice where the plaintiff failed to make required payments.

The court applied the test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (A.G.) and found that the plaintiff failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, given repeated breaches of the agreement including numerous NSF payments and failure to meet contractual obligations.

The court further held that the plaintiff did not demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured relief, particularly where alternative fuel suppliers could be obtained and evidence of business collapse was speculative.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendants.