Test to Set-Aside a Default Judgement: Difference between revisions

From Riverview Legal Group
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
Line 25: Line 25:


20. At the hearing, neither party presented case law as to the interpretation of the meaning of “meritorious defence.”  In Shamar, supra, I stated:
20. At the hearing, neither party presented case law as to the interpretation of the meaning of “meritorious defence.”  In Shamar, supra, I stated:
::On at least a simple reading of the claim and defence together, the defence appears to me to be reasonably coherent and plausible….
::<i>On at least a simple reading of the claim and defence together, the defence appears to me to be reasonably coherent and plausible….</i>


21. I accept that the plaintiff here may have a strong case such that the defence (in particular, that the wrong entity is being sued) will not prevail at trial.  But I respectfully do not see that a judge on a motion to set aside a default is called upon in effect to determine whether the defence will prevail at trial:  the test must be less onerous than that.  See <i>Heasman v Mac’s Convenience Store Inc., 2015 ONSC 2290 (CanLII), (2015) O.J. No. 1746, 252 A.C.W.S. (3d) 576 (Div. Ct.)</i><ref name="Heasman"/>.
21. I accept that the plaintiff here may have a strong case such that the defence (in particular, that the wrong entity is being sued) will not prevail at trial.  But I respectfully do not see that a judge on a motion to set aside a default is called upon in effect to determine whether the defence will prevail at trial:  the test must be less onerous than that.  See <i>Heasman v Mac’s Convenience Store Inc., 2015 ONSC 2290 (CanLII), (2015) O.J. No. 1746, 252 A.C.W.S. (3d) 576 (Div. Ct.)</i><ref name="Heasman"/>.

Revision as of 15:18, 11 February 2022


Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved: 2024-11-23
CLNP Page ID: 1869
Page Categories: [Rule 11 - Default Proceedings (SCSM Rules)]
Citation: Test to Set-Aside a Default Judgement, CLNP 1869, <6M>, retrieved on 2024-11-23
Editor: Sharvey
Last Updated: 2022/02/11

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today


O. Reg. 258/98: RULES OF THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT

11.06 The court may set aside the noting in default or default judgment against a party and any step that has been taken to enforce the judgment, on such terms as are just, if the party makes a motion to set aside and the court is satisfied that,

(a) the party has a meritorious defence and a reasonable explanation for the default; and
(b) the motion is made as soon as is reasonably possible in all the circumstances. O. Reg. 78/06, s. 24.


[1]

Adam Macarthur Electrical Contracting Ltd. v Lamb Development Corporation, 2017 CanLII 37773 (ON SCSM)[2]

11. The test for setting aside a default judgment in Small Claims Court is set out in Rule 11.06, as follows:

11.06 The court may set aside the noting in default or default judgment against a party and any step that has been taken to enforce the judgment, on such terms as are just, if the party makes a motion to set aside and the court is satisfied that,
(a) the party has a meritorious defence and a reasonable explanation for the default; and
(b) the motion is made as soon as is reasonably possible in all the circumstances.
...

20. At the hearing, neither party presented case law as to the interpretation of the meaning of “meritorious defence.” In Shamar, supra, I stated:

On at least a simple reading of the claim and defence together, the defence appears to me to be reasonably coherent and plausible….

21. I accept that the plaintiff here may have a strong case such that the defence (in particular, that the wrong entity is being sued) will not prevail at trial. But I respectfully do not see that a judge on a motion to set aside a default is called upon in effect to determine whether the defence will prevail at trial: the test must be less onerous than that. See Heasman v Mac’s Convenience Store Inc., 2015 ONSC 2290 (CanLII), (2015) O.J. No. 1746, 252 A.C.W.S. (3d) 576 (Div. Ct.)[3].

22. As in Shamar, supra, I have read the draft defence along with the claim and the affidavit material, and in that context the defence appears to me to be reasonably coherent and plausible. I would therefore find that the test of “meritorious defence” is met.

[2] [3]

References

  1. O. Reg. 258/98: RULES OF THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/980258>, retrieved 2022-02-11
  2. 2.0 2.1 Adam Macarthur Electrical Contracting Ltd. v Lamb Development Corporation, 2017 CanLII 37773 (ON SCSM), <https://canlii.ca/t/h4c74>, retrieved on 2022-02-11
  3. 3.0 3.1 Heasman v Mac’s Convenience Store Inc., 2015 ONSC 2290 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gh4kp>, retrieved on 2022-02-11