Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-20-653608 Date: 2022-09-30 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Jobert De La Cruz, Plaintiff And: Bianca Mari Cru Arcinas and Erica Leora Pagaduan, Defendants

Before: W.D. Black J.

Counsel: Eric Blau, for the Plaintiff No one appearing for the Defendants

Read: September 14, 2022

Endorsement

[1] The plaintiff moves for default judgment against the defendant Bianca Mari Cru Arcinas (“Arcinas”).

[2] The claim relates to defamatory comments posted by Arcinas on Instagram, making unsubstantiated and false claims that the plaintiff was involved in violence against women. These posts remain accessible and have been widely viewed.

[3] On June 23, 2020, the plaintiff served a Notice of Libel on Arcinas, and on December 21, 2020, the plaintiff issued his statement of claim. The claim was served on Arcinas via personal service on January 3, 2021.

[4] By February 19, 2021, Arcinas had provided no defence to the claim and was noted in default by the Registrar.

[5] On August 23, 2021, the matter came before Justice Myers for triage. His Honour ordered the plaintiff to serve his motion record (seeking default judgment) on the defendants, together with a copy of His Honour’s endorsement and specified that the motion record should include the Noting in Default and the form of Judgment sought by the plaintiff.

[6] Justice Myers confirmed that the affidavit of service should provide sufficient particulars for a judge to find that the defendants received the statement of claim and motion record or otherwise knew about the lawsuit.

[7] His Honour provided time for the defendants to respond, failing which he ordered that the motion would proceed in writing during the week of September 27, 2021.

[8] In the result, the matter then came before Justice Sanfilippo on September 27, 2021. His Honour expressed concerns about the means of service employed by the plaintiff with respect to the service contemplated in Justice Myers’ earlier Order and accordingly, made a further Order, essentially replicating Justice Myers’ earlier Order, but confirming the means of service that would suffice and extending the timetable further for service to occur, and for a response, if any, from the defendants.

[9] The plaintiff has since complied with Justice Sanfilippo’s Order, as the affidavit of service filed with the materials attests.

[10] The defendants, despite now having had considerable time to respond, have not done so.

[11] Having read the materials, in my view it is appropriate for default judgment to issue and so I order that a judgment issue in the form provided with the materials filed by the plaintiff, save and except that the references to “Order” in that document should be changed to reflect that it is a Judgment. The amount of the Judgment should be $140,000.00, and it should be for defamation (and not breach of contract as the draft Order/Judgment filed with the materials currently says).

[12] The amount of costs sought by the plaintiff in his costs outline, $1,413.11, is entirely reasonable, and that amount should also be reflected in the judgment.

W.D Black J.

Date: September 30, 2022