Robyn Erin Blumberg

The defendants brought motions to set aside default judgments totaling over $315,000, which were granted after their Statements of Defence were struck for non-compliance with court orders and rules.

The court applied the five-factor test from *Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen* to determine if the interests of justice favored setting aside the judgments.

The court found that the defendants moved promptly, had an arguable defence, and would suffer significant prejudice if the judgments stood.

While the explanation for default was neutral, the court emphasized that striking a defence is a severe remedy and that the plaintiff could have made more effort to ensure the self-represented defendants were aware of their jeopardy.

The motions to set aside the default judgments and associated writs of seizure and sale were granted, with costs reserved.

Powerline Plus Ltd. brought a motion for an order requiring Platinum Infrastructure Inc. to post security for Powerline's costs in the amount of $202,000.

Platinum opposed, arguing impecuniosity and merit.

The court granted leave for the motion under the Construction Act, finding Powerline established good reason to believe Platinum had insufficient assets, citing indicia of insolvency.

Platinum failed to prove impecuniosity or sufficient assets.

While Platinum showed a good chance of proving Powerline breached the subcontract, its claim quantum was inconsistent, and Powerline's set-off defence had some merit, though lacking cost evidence.

Considering Platinum's litigation conduct, which included unfair practices, the court ordered Platinum to post $100,000 in security for costs, payable in two installments.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The Master had discharged the CPL on the basis of the appellant's material non-disclosure of a "no registration" clause in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) when obtaining the CPL ex parte.

The appellate court upheld the Master's decision, finding no reversible error in the Master's application of the law regarding the duty of full and frank disclosure on ex parte motions.

The court affirmed that failure to make full and frank disclosure of a material fact is sufficient grounds to set aside an ex parte order.

The appellant, Earl Lewis, operating as The Recovery Board, appealed a judgment finding him jointly and severally liable for conversion of three vehicles.

The vehicles had been towed by Chris's Towing and Lewis was retained to register liens and issue notices of intention to sell.

The application judge found Lewis liable for conversion and awarded damages including HST.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of liability for conversion but reduced damages by eliminating the HST component, as the respondent had not incurred HST costs and ownership had changed before actual sales occurred.