The moving party sought to set aside a noting in default in a construction lien action, arguing improper service of the statement of claim and lack of awareness of the proceeding.
The court held that service by mail was valid under the Rules of Civil Procedure after the process server attended at the corporation’s recorded address and could not effect personal service.
The moving party failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to deliver a defence, failed to demonstrate a continuous intention to defend, and provided no evidence supporting a meritorious defence as required under the Construction Lien Act.
Bare denials in a proposed statement of defence were insufficient.
The court therefore declined to grant relief from default.
