Kelland v. Hardestine Holdings Limited

The Court held the motion judge applied the correct test, the appellant failed to satisfy Rule 16.07(a) by not explaining the failure to defend after valid service and notice, and failed to demonstrate an arguable defence on the merits; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Citation: 2008 ONCA 537
Parties: Plaintiff (respondent): Paul Kelland; Defendant (appellant): Hardestine Holdings Limited
Court: Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 4 July 2008
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal From Superior Court Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision (hearing July 2, 2008)
Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics: Default Judgment, Service of Statement of Claim, Setting Aside Default, Rule 16.07(a), Mortgagee in Possession, Possession and Discharge of Mortgage, Costs
Source Language: English

Civil Civil Procedure Property Law Mortgage Law Appellate Review Default Judgment Service of Statement of Claim Setting Aside Default +4 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Paul Kelland

Plaintiff (respondent)

Hardestine Holdings Limited

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Superior Court Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision (hearing July 2, 2008)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing to set aside the default judgment
2 Whether the statement of claim was validly served
3 Whether the appellant provided an explanation for failing to defend under Rule 16.07(a)

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

Appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $20,000 for both the appeal and the motion before Watt J.A., inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.