ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: Covenoho v. Ceridian Canada and Pendylum Inc., 2015 ONSC 3543
COURT FILE NO: CV-15-522160
DATE: 20150602
B E T W E E N:
Joss Covenoho
Plaintiff
- and -
Ceridian Canada and Pendylum Inc.
Defendants
In Person
HEARD: May 29, 2015
Default Judgment
WHITAKER J.
[1] This is the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment in court file no. CV-15-522160 and under Rule 19.05. There is other litigation between the parties, not before me in the motion.
[2] The defendant was noted in default on March 25, 2015.
[3] The Registrar was not prepared to grant the summary judgment sought by the plaintiff on the basis that the plaintiff was seeking remedies that were not liquidated damages.
[4] The most recent activity is set out in the Endorsement of Myers J dated April 16, 2015, dismissing the defendants’ request for an Order under Rule 2.1.
[5] I have reviewed the statement of claim which consists or assertions of mixed fact and law. It is difficult to understand and follow.
[6] In my view, this claim is fundamentally misconceived. The plaintiff’s theory is based on the assertion that she is entitled to a lifelong position. This cannot be proven and is clearly not the case.
[7] The facts asserted do not permit the granting of judgment.
[8] The relief sought by the plaintiff could not be obtained even if the underlying facts in this matter were to be proven.
[9] To the extent that the claims can be understood, the facts pled cannot permit the conclusions of law set out in the statement of claim.
[10] The request for default judgment is dismissed.
[11] The parties may address the issue of costs within two weeks on two pages.
WHITAKER, J.
DATE: June 2, 2015
CITATION: Covenoho v. Ceridian Canada and Pendylum Inc., 2015 ONSC 3543
COURT FILE NO: CV-15-522160
DATE: 20150602
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Joss Covenoho
Plaintiff
- and -
Ceridian Canada and Pendylum Inc.
Defendants
REASONS FOR DECISION
WHITAKER J.
Released: June 2, 2015