John Russo

The moving party sought to set aside a default judgment obtained in a property management services dispute or, alternatively, to vary the judgment by removing a 36% prejudgment interest component.

Applying the three-part test under Rule 19.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the motion was not brought without delay and that the circumstances leading to the default were not adequately explained.

However, the court concluded that part of the defence relating to two repair invoices had an arguable basis.

The court varied the judgment by granting partial judgment for the undisputed portion of the debt, reducing the interest rate to 5%, and setting aside the balance of the claim so that it could be defended.

The remaining dispute was transferred to the Small Claims Court for adjudication.

The plaintiff moved for leave to appeal a decision setting aside a Master's order that required the defendant to produce solicitor-client communications.

The defendant had filed an affidavit explaining his previous solicitor's misapprehension of his position in support of a motion to amend his Statement of Defence.

The motion judge held that waiver of privilege depended on whether the amendment was made under Rule 51.05 or Rule 26.01.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and that the issue of conditional or partial waiver of privilege is of general public importance.

The appellant appealed a judgment fixing the amounts owing under a commercial lease.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's interpretation of the offer to lease and renewal document.

The court also found no unfairness in the application judge fixing the actual amounts owing, as the appellant had a fair chance to present its position on quantification.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order dismissing their claims against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by weighing evidence and concluded there was a genuine issue for trial regarding whether one respondent was a director of the corporation, and regarding a limitation period issue.

However, the court upheld the dismissal against another respondent, as there was no evidence he agreed to be appointed as a director.

The appeal was allowed in part.