William Chapman

The defendant, Karen Patino-Ramirez, brought an urgent motion to set aside four default judgments and stay their enforcement, primarily focusing on one judgment concerning two Oakville properties.

The plaintiff, CMI High Yield Opportunity Fund, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the default judgment, finding no arguable defence on the merits regarding the mortgage default or the validity of a forbearance agreement.

However, the court acknowledged an arguable defence concerning certain administrative fees charged by the plaintiff and ordered a mechanism to resolve this issue, staying enforcement of the judgment and writ of possession on the matrimonial home until the fee dispute is resolved.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to add his insurer as a defendant under the OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement, alleging that the tortfeasor was an inadequately insured motorist.

The insurer opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed claim was not legally tenable and was barred by limitation periods.

The court held that, on the undisputed insurance limits and facts alleged, the definition of “inadequately insured motorist” in the endorsement could not be met whether the plaintiff or the other driver was found to be operating the vehicle.

Because the proposed amendment could not succeed in law, allowing it would create non-compensable prejudice.

The motion to amend the statement of claim was therefore dismissed.