Nippon Express Canada Ltd. v. Provan

Nippon Express Canada Ltd. v. Provan

The appeal is dismissed because the judgment was for a liquidated sum supported by detailed invoices, service of the statement of claim was proper, the default judgment was properly obtained under Rule 19.04(1)(a), and the trial judge correctly applied the Chitel test and did not err in refusing to set aside the default judgment.

Citation
C37401, M30290
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Nippon Express Canada Ltd.; Defendant (appellant): William Provan; Defendant (appellant): William Provan carrying on business as Global Trade Services
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Superior Court / Appeal From Order Dismissing Application to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Default, Service of Process, Fraud, Costs, Restitution, Double Recovery
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Default Judgment Setting Aside Default Service of Process Fraud Costs Restitution +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nippon Express Canada Ltd.

Plaintiff (respondent)

William Provan

Defendant (appellant)

William Provan carrying on business as Global Trade Services

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Superior Court / Appeal From Order Dismissing Application to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment was for a liquidated sum under Rule 19.04(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether there was proper service of the statement of claim
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of Rule 19 were complied with

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the judgment was for a liquidated sum supported by detailed invoices, service of the statement of claim was proper, the default judgment was properly obtained under Rule 19.04(1)(a), and the trial judge correctly applied the Chitel test and did not err in refusing to set aside the default judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Default judgment of July 10, 2001 is upheld