2 total
The court set aside a default judgment because the plaintiff failed to prove proper service and the defendants demonstrated an arguable defence.
The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and the noting of default, arguing they were not properly served and lacked notice of the default proceedings and the uncontested trial.
They also asserted an arguable defence on the merits.
The court found the plaintiff failed to meet the onus of establishing proper service and did not follow the "better practice" of notifying the defendants of the default or the uncontested trial.
The court also determined that the defendants had an arguable defence with an "air of reality." The motion was granted, setting aside the default judgment and noting of default, lifting writs of seizure and sale, and granting leave for the defendants to file their Statement of Defence.
A subcontractor's motion to extend a court-ordered deadline for answering discovery undertakings was dismissed for lacking a sufficient explanation.
Leblon Carpentry Inc. brought a motion seeking an extension of a court-ordered deadline to provide answers to undertakings from its examination for discovery, including a *nunc pro tunc* extension and further time for an outstanding undertaking.
The motion was opposed by Qi Tang, who sought to preclude Leblon from relying on the late answers.
The court dismissed Leblon's motion, finding that Leblon failed to provide a sufficient and convincing explanation for its non-compliance and did not demonstrate honest and meaningful efforts to provide responsive answers.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to court orders, particularly in summary lien proceedings, and ruled that Leblon could not rely on the information subject to the undertakings requested by Qi Tang that was not provided by the original deadline.
Costs were awarded to Qi Tang.
