The defendants moved to set aside default judgments arising from a loan transaction secured by promissory note and mortgages.
They alleged the underlying mortgage documents contained forged signatures and argued the judgments were therefore irregularly obtained.
The court held the judgments were regularly obtained because the action was properly served and the debt itself was admitted through subsequent written acknowledgments.
Applying the Rule 19.08 discretionary test, the court found the defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the default, demonstrated no triable defence, and delayed excessively in advancing the motion.
The equities favoured the lender, who had been unpaid for years and relied on the defendants’ repeated acknowledgments of the debt.
