Simon Croft Sigler

The appellant sought to set aside a default judgment entered seven years earlier after her pleadings were struck for non-compliance with a costs order imposed as a condition of an adjournment.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding it was not brought promptly or pursued diligently and disbelieving the explanation offered.

On appeal, the court found no error in the motion judge's application of the test under Rule 19.08 for setting aside a default judgment, including findings of prejudice and tarnishing of the administration of justice.

The Attorney General of Canada sought summary judgment to dismiss a claim by Atikameksheng Anishnawbek First Nation, arguing that their request to re-delineate reserve boundaries constituted a collateral attack and abuse of process on a 1889 judgment (Francis).

The First Nation argued the Francis decision was unfair as they were not an equal party.

The court dismissed Canada's motion, exercising its residual discretion to allow the claim to proceed to trial, emphasizing that while re-litigation doctrines are important, justice and reconciliation, particularly for Indigenous rights, can override them when there was a structural unfairness in prior proceedings.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a successful motion by a Judgment Creditor to enforce two notices of garnishment against funds held by Renaud Law on behalf of two Debtors.

The Judgment Creditor sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

One Debtor requested deferral of the costs decision pending a motion to set aside the default judgment.

The court found the garnishment motion necessary and complex due to issues raised by the Debtors.

It declined to defer the costs decision, noting the delay by the Debtors in challenging the default judgment.

The court awarded the Judgment Creditor costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the amount fair and reasonable.

The applicant brought a motion for an extension of time and leave to appeal a decision of the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation regarding the valuation of his property.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled ZOOM hearing and requested an in-person 'Chancery' hearing, arguing he was not liable for property taxes as a 'natural person'.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion due to the applicant's failure to attend and found the proposed appeal was an abuse of process and devoid of merit.

The court also imposed restrictions on the applicant's ability to commence further proceedings regarding property taxes without prior judicial permission.