Canada Judgment

Federal Court

Canada v. Zielinski Brother's Farm Inc.

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The defendants were in default because personal service of the Statement of Claim was effected and no Statement of Defence was filed within the time required by Rule 204; the plaintiff's affidavits established that the amounts claimed from three advances under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act were due, demand was made and payment was not made; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment in the claimed amount, costs fixed in lieu of taxation, and interest as ordered.

Court disposition

Default judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff

Orders

  • The Plaintiff recover from the Defendants the sum of $552,720.92
  • The Plaintiff's costs are fixed at $1,363.95 in lieu of taxation
  • Interest shall accrue at the per diem rate of $105.25 from November 13, 2019 to the date of this Judgment and thereafter at the rate of 5.00 percent per annum

02

Material facts

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

Plaintiff Counsel: Cailen Brust

Zielinski Brother's Farm Inc.

Defendant

Darcy Zielinski

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Judgment Amount: CAD 552,720.92
  • Costs Fixed: CAD 1,363.95
  • Per Diem Interest: CAD 105.25
  • Annual Interest Rate Percent: 5

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Debt Recovery Under Agricultural Marketing Programs Act / Ex Parte Motion for Default Judgment (judgment Entered)

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Plaintiff submitted that personal service of the Statement of Claim was effected May 31, 2019, no Statement of Defence was filed within the time provided by Rule 204, and affidavits of Mark De Luca and Shelley Warner establish that three advances under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act are due and owing, demand was made and payment was not made. Plaintiff sought judgment for the claimed amount, interest and costs.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Chase Manhattan Corp v 3133559 Canada Inc, 2001 FCT 895

    On a motion for default judgment the court must determine (1) whether the defendants are in default and (2) whether there is evidence to support the plaintiff's claim

  2. 02

    Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (Rules 210(1), 204, 369)

    Rules 210(1) and 369 permit ex parte motions and Rule 204 sets the time to file a statement of defence; failure to file constitutes default

  3. 03

    Affidavits of Mark De Luca and Shelley Warner; Federal Court judgment

    Where affidavits establish the debt, demand and non-payment, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed including costs and interest

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The defendants were in default because personal service of the Statement of Claim was effected and no Statement of Defence was filed within the time required by Rule 204; the plaintiff's affidavits established that the amounts claimed from three advances under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act were due, demand was made and payment was not made; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment in the claimed amount, costs fixed in lieu of taxation, and interest as ordered.

Court disposition

Default judgment entered in favour of the Plaintiff

  • The Plaintiff recover from the Defendants the sum of $552,720.92
  • The Plaintiff's costs are fixed at $1,363.95 in lieu of taxation
  • Interest shall accrue at the per diem rate of $105.25 from November 13, 2019 to the date of this Judgment and thereafter at the rate of 5.00 percent per annum

Source and reliance status

Federal Court · 29 November 2019

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Federal Court

Judgment· 29 November 2019

2019 FC 1532

Canada v. Zielinski Brother's Farm Inc. Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2019-11-29 Neutral citation 2019 FC 1532 File numbers T-815-19 Decision Content Date: 20191129 Docket: T-815-19 Citation: 2019 FC 1532 Ottawa, Ontario, November 29, 2019 PRESENT: Madam Justice Walker BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

IN RIGHT OF CANADA Plaintiff and ZIELINSKI BROTHER'S FARM INC.

AND DARCY ZIELINSKI Defendants

JUDGMENT AND REASONS UPON EX PARTE MOTION in writing filed November 18, 2019 on behalf of the Plaintiff, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, pursuant to Rules 210(1) and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (Rules) for: (a) judgment against the Defendants as claimed in the Statement of Claim on the basis that the Defendants have not filed a Statement of Defence; (b) the Plaintiff’s costs of this action; and (c) such further or other order as this Honourable Court may deem just; AND UPON reading the motion record filed on behalf of the Plaintiff: [1] On a motion for default judgment, the Court has two questions before it: (1) are the defendants in default?; and (2) is there evidence to support the plaintiff's claim? (Chase Manhattan Corp v 3133559 Canada Inc, 2001 FCT 895). [2] On the first question, the Plaintiff has established that personal service of the Statement of Claim was effected on the Defendants on May 31, 2019. There is no record of any statement of defence being filed by or on behalf of the Defendants within the time provided in Rule 204. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the Defendant is in default. [3] With regard to the second question, the Plaintiff’s motion is supported by the affidavits of Mark De Luca and Shelley Warner. On the basis of the deponents’ evidence, I am satisfied that: (1) the amounts claimed by the Plaintiff in the

Statement of Claim, as a result of three advances under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, SC 1997, c 20, are due and owing by the Defendants; (2) that demand for payment was made by the Plaintiff; and (3) the Defendants have failed to pay the outstanding amounts and accrued interest. In the circumstances, the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested in the Statement of Claim and the Plaintiff’s costs, as detailed in the affidavit of Shelley Warner. JUDGMENT IN T-815-19 THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that: The Plaintiff recover from the Defendants the sum of $552,720.92, together with Her costs hereby fixed at $1,363.95 in lieu of taxation. Interest on the above-noted sums shall accrue at the per diem rate of $105.25 from November 13, 2019 to the date of this Judgment and thereafter at the rate of 5.00 percent per annum. "Elizabeth Walker" Judge

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-815-19 STYLE OF CAUSE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA v ZIELINSKI BROTHER'S FARM INC. AND DARCY ZIELINSKI EX PARTE MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO PURSUANT TO RULES 210 AND 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES judgment and REASONS: WALKER J. DATED: November 29, 2019 WRITTEN REPRSENTATIONS BY: Cailen Brust For The plaintiff SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Attorney General of Canada Saskatoon, Saskatchewan For The plaintiff

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Chase Manhattan Corp v 3133559 Canada Inc, 2001 FCT 895

Case cited

Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, SC 1997, c 20

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 (Rules 204, 210(1), 369)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.