The respondent in a family law application moved under r. 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to set aside an order noting her in default for failing to serve and file an answer.
The court held it had no jurisdiction to set aside the noting of default under r. 25(19) because the respondent had proper notice and was physically present at the motion.
The court also declined to adopt a procedure analogous to r. 19.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding no gap in the FLRs warranted filling.
Even if jurisdiction existed, the court would not have exercised its discretion in the respondent's favour given her unexplained and unreasonable failure to comply with the rules over nearly a year.
