Noted in Default

The plaintiffs, Mitel Networks Corporation and Mitel Networks, Inc., sought a declaration that the defendant, Division Integral de Telefonia S.A. de C.V. (“Divitel”), breached a distribution agreement and requested judgment for outstanding payments, as well as the preservation and return of all products.

The court details the extensive efforts required to serve Divitel in Mexico under the Hague Service Convention, including multiple Letters Rogatory and publication in Mexican newspapers.

Divitel was noted in default, and the court granted default judgment in favour of Mitel for $1,607,707.32 CAD ($1,174,966.98 USD), as well as costs and disbursements.

The court found the costs reasonable given the complexity and international service requirements.

The plaintiff's claims arising from a motor vehicle accident were settled, leaving a liability dispute between the defendant vehicle owner and the plaintiff's insurer.

The owner's boyfriend took her vehicle without express permission and was involved in a collision.

The court found the owner's evidence lacking in credibility, noting her failure to report the vehicle stolen and her delay in contacting police.

The court held that the owner failed to rebut the presumption under s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act that the driver had her implied consent to possess the vehicle, rendering her vicariously liable.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, brought a motion for default judgment against two defendants for defamation.

The defendants, co-owners in a Costa Rican condominium, sent emails to other owners alleging theft, dishonesty, and unethical behavior by the plaintiff, who was the HOA President.

Both defendants were noted in default.

The court established jurisdiction based on attornment (for one defendant) and the real and substantial connection test (for both, as defamatory emails were received in Ontario).

The court found the statements defamatory, referring to the plaintiff, and published.

Damages were assessed, considering the plaintiff's professional standing, the seriousness and widespread nature of the allegations, the defendants' lack of retraction or apology, and their malicious conduct, including attempts to deter litigation.

General, aggravated, and punitive damages were awarded against each defendant, along with costs.

The applicant wife sought to set aside a handwritten separation agreement, divide the respondent husband's pension, and obtain retroactive spousal support.

The respondent failed to file responding materials and was noted in default.

The court set aside the separation agreement due to lack of formal witnessing, lack of financial disclosure, and unconscionability.

The court ordered an immediate transfer of 50% of the respondent's pension and awarded indefinite compensatory spousal support of $3,700 per month, retroactive to the date the respondent was put on notice of the proceedings.