L. Lung

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff for unauthorized shipping charges.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment.

The court found that the defendants did not bring the motion promptly, deliberately evaded service and ignored the litigation, and failed to present an arguable defence on the merits.

The motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.

Following a motion to strike improper allegations of fraud from a Notice of Motion, the moving party sought substantial indemnity costs.

The responding party, who was self-represented, continued to cast aspersions on counsel in her costs submissions.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $6,800 to the moving party, noting that such costs are warranted to chastise and deter litigants from making irrelevant and prejudicial allegations against officers of the court.

The court issued amended reasons for decision to address three issues raised by the parties following the release of the original decision.

The court suspended its previous decision on costs to allow the responding party to make written submissions, provided directions for settling the order, and clarified that there was no omission in the order regarding costs against a third party.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the defendants and a non-party corporation for allegedly failing to comply with prior court orders requiring the delivery of aircraft engine logbooks.

The moving party argued the materials had been removed or withheld in breach of orders compelling their production.

The court held that contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and found the evidence against the non-party was entirely circumstantial with no plausible motive established.

While the evidence suggested it was possible the individual defendant removed the logbooks, the court concluded the record did not establish the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt due to alternative explanations and lack of direct evidence.

The contempt motion was dismissed.