Test to Set-Aside a Default Judgement: Difference between revisions
m (→References) |
|||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
<ref name="Adam Macarthur">Adam Macarthur Electrical Contracting Ltd. v Lamb Development Corporation, 2017 CanLII 37773 (ON SCSM), <https://canlii.ca/t/h4c74>, retrieved on 2022-02-11</ref> | <ref name="Adam Macarthur">Adam Macarthur Electrical Contracting Ltd. v Lamb Development Corporation, 2017 CanLII 37773 (ON SCSM), <https://canlii.ca/t/h4c74>, retrieved on 2022-02-11</ref> | ||
<ref name="Heasman">Heasman v Mac’s Convenience Store Inc., 2015 ONSC 2290 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gh4kp>, retrieved on 2022-02-11</ref> | <ref name="Heasman">Heasman v Mac’s Convenience Store Inc., 2015 ONSC 2290 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gh4kp>, retrieved on 2022-02-11</ref> | ||
==Hiley v. Hill, 2018 ONSC 5315 (CanLII)<ref name="Hiley"/>== | |||
[11] In the majority of cases, the most important factor on a typical motion will be the requirement to establish that the moving defendant has “a meritorious defence”. <i>Morgan v. Toronto (Municipality) Police Services Board, 2003 CarswellOnt 1105 (Ont. C.A.)</i><ref name="Morgan"/> at paras. 25-26. If the record makes clear that the defendant has no defence, there is little point in setting aside the default judgment as the net effect of doing so may simply be to increase the defendant’s liability by exposing him or her to the risk of a representation fee at trial. However, if there is a meritorious defence, the system favours a determination on the merits so both parties have a full opportunity to present their respective sides of the story. | |||
[12] A “meritorious defence” means an arguable defence. It does not require the moving defendant to establish that the defence is likely to succeed at trial. (<i>Coombs v. Curran, 2010 ONSC 1312 (Ont. Div. Ct.) (CanLII)</i><ref name="Coombs"/> | |||
<ref name="Hiley">Hiley v. Hill, 2018 ONSC 5315 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hv198>, retrieved on 2022-02-11</ref> | |||
<ref name="Morgan">Morgan v. Municipality of Toronto Police Services Board, 2003 CanLII 14993 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/1brrk>, retrieved on 2022-02-11</ref> | |||
<ref name="Coombs">Coombs, et al v. Curran, et al, 2010 ONSC 1312 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/28cck>, retrieved on 2022-02-11</ref> | |||
==References== | ==References== |
Revision as of 15:23, 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.
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.
Hiley v. Hill, 2018 ONSC 5315 (CanLII)[4]
[11] In the majority of cases, the most important factor on a typical motion will be the requirement to establish that the moving defendant has “a meritorious defence”. Morgan v. Toronto (Municipality) Police Services Board, 2003 CarswellOnt 1105 (Ont. C.A.)[5] at paras. 25-26. If the record makes clear that the defendant has no defence, there is little point in setting aside the default judgment as the net effect of doing so may simply be to increase the defendant’s liability by exposing him or her to the risk of a representation fee at trial. However, if there is a meritorious defence, the system favours a determination on the merits so both parties have a full opportunity to present their respective sides of the story.
[12] A “meritorious defence” means an arguable defence. It does not require the moving defendant to establish that the defence is likely to succeed at trial. (Coombs v. Curran, 2010 ONSC 1312 (Ont. Div. Ct.) (CanLII)[6]
References
- ↑ O. Reg. 258/98: RULES OF THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT, <https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/980258>, retrieved 2022-02-11
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Heasman v Mac’s Convenience Store Inc., 2015 ONSC 2290 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/gh4kp>, retrieved on 2022-02-11
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 Hiley v. Hill, 2018 ONSC 5315 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/hv198>, retrieved on 2022-02-11
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Morgan v. Municipality of Toronto Police Services Board, 2003 CanLII 14993 (ON CA), <https://canlii.ca/t/1brrk>, retrieved on 2022-02-11
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Coombs, et al v. Curran, et al, 2010 ONSC 1312 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/28cck>, retrieved on 2022-02-11