Q. Ryan Hanna

The applicants entered into agreements to purchase pre-construction condominiums from the respondent developer.

The agreements required the purchasers to provide financial disclosure and mortgage approvals within a specified time.

The applicants failed to provide the required documentation on time, and the respondent terminated the agreements.

The applicants sought relief from forfeiture under s. 98 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants had not exercised reasonable diligence to comply with the agreements, their breach was substantial, and there was no reliable evidence of the disparity between the value of the properties and the damage caused by the breach.

The moving party sought to set aside a default judgment entered after he failed to attend trial in a construction dispute involving unpaid subcontractor invoices and alleged breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The court applied the established three‑part test for setting aside default judgments, considering whether there was a plausible excuse for failing to attend trial, whether the motion was brought promptly, and whether a defence on the merits existed.

The court found the moving party knew of the trial date, deliberately failed to attend, delayed unreasonably in seeking relief, and lacked a viable defence, including evidence that he exercised effective control over the corporation that breached the statutory trust.

The motion to set aside the judgment and related enforcement orders was dismissed, though the court directed steps toward examination in aid of execution and potential production of a mortgage discharge statement.