Stefan A. De Smit

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence, including video recordings, that the appellants were personally served and consciously decided to ignore the process.

The Court noted that a conscious decision not to participate bars consideration of a defence on the merits.

The respondent law firm sued the appellant for unpaid legal bills arising from divorce proceedings.

The appellant counterclaimed for an order that the bills be referred for assessment, alleging his lawyer failed to address a material change in circumstance and a mathematical error in an arbitration award.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the law firm, finding the request for assessment disingenuous because the appellant had promised to pay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the request was not tactical as the factual basis was known to the solicitor during the relationship, and referred the accounts for assessment.