Wark v. Oliver

Wark v. Oliver

The Court allowed the appeal because the statement of claim was not properly served under the Rules, warranting setting aside the default judgment dated November 27, 2001 and the Writ of Seizure and Sale; costs were awarded to the appellant.

Citation
C40013
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Bruce Wark; Plaintiff/respondent: Rae Ann Wark; Defendant/appellant: Rachel Oliver
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Heard and Endorsed at Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; default judgment and Writ of Seizure and Sale set aside; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Default Judgment, Writ of Seizure and Sale, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Enforcement Appeals Service of Process Default Judgment Writ of Seizure and Sale Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Wark

Plaintiff/respondent

Rae Ann Wark

Plaintiff/respondent

Rachel Oliver

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Heard and Endorsed at Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of claim was properly served under the Rules
  2. 2 Whether the default judgment should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether the Writ of Seizure and Sale should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal because the statement of claim was not properly served under the Rules, warranting setting aside the default judgment dated November 27, 2001 and the Writ of Seizure and Sale; costs were awarded to the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; default judgment and Writ of Seizure and Sale set aside; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Default judgment dated November 27, 2001 set aside