Kurt Anders

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff for unpaid construction work.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendant did not move promptly, failed to provide a plausible excuse for the default, and lacked an arguable defence to the plaintiff's quantum meruit claim.

The court concluded that setting aside the judgment would prejudice the plaintiff and undermine the integrity of the administration of justice.

The motion was dismissed.

The court-appointed liquidator of a partnership sought approval of its fees and disbursements, including legal fees, and directions for the distribution of the net proceeds.

The liquidation involved significant complications, including the need to recognize a Quebec judgment in Ontario and deal with multiple creditors.

The court approved the liquidator's fees, finding them fair and reasonable despite exceeding a 2:1 ratio of net receivables, due to the disproportionate difficulties encountered.

The court also interpreted the underlying Quebec judgment, concluding that a specific sum awarded to one partner was a damages award, not a priority claim on the liquidated assets, and directed the remaining proceeds to be distributed pro rata among the other partner's creditors.

In a family law dispute involving a jointly operated cleaning business following marital separation, the applicant sought an order vesting ownership of several business vehicles in her name to permit insurance and continued business operations.

The respondent opposed and brought a cross-motion for contempt based on alleged non-payment of draws and salary under a prior consent order, and sought control of the business.

The court held that contempt was unavailable for enforcement of monetary obligations and found the respondent’s actions had interfered with the business, including cancelling vehicle insurance.

To protect the ongoing viability of the enterprise pending trial, the court vested the vehicles in the applicant subject to conditions on maintenance and disposition.

The respondent’s contempt motion and related requests were dismissed.