The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment arising from a motor vehicle accident action in which the plaintiffs obtained judgment following an undefended trial.
The court considered whether service of the statement of claim was regular and proper under an order for substituted service and whether the defendant satisfied the three-part test under Rule 19.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court found the plaintiffs complied with the substituted service order and the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of proper service.
The defendant also failed to provide a plausible explanation for the default or establish an arguable defence on the merits.
The motion to set aside the default judgment was dismissed.
