Storoszko & Associates v. 1489767 Ontario Limited

Storoszko & Associates v. 1489767 Ontario Limited

The Court held that dismissal of the motion to vary a final default judgment is a final judgment and therefore the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction; however the appeal was summarily dismissed as an abuse of process because of inexcusable delay, prejudice to the respondent, duplicative proceedings with the bankruptcy...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 ONCA 147
Parties
Plaintiff / Respondent / Moving Party: Storoszko & Associates; Defendant / Appellant / Responding Party: 1489767 Ontario Limited; Defendant / Appellant / Responding Party: Donald Barry Hughes
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil (mortgage Action; Related Bankruptcy Proceeding) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Motion Judge's Order Dismissing Motion to Vary Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed summarily as an abuse of process; motion to quash dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Motion to Vary, Abuse of Process, Summary Dismissal, Jurisdiction
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Mortgage Law Appeal Default Judgment Motion to Vary Abuse of Process Summary Dismissal +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Storoszko & Associates

Plaintiff / Respondent / Moving Party

1489767 Ontario Limited

Defendant / Appellant / Responding Party

Donald Barry Hughes

Defendant / Appellant / Responding Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (mortgage Action; Related Bankruptcy Proceeding) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Motion Judge's Order Dismissing Motion to Vary Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal or whether the order is interlocutory
  2. 2 Whether the motion to vary was properly considered under Rule 19.08
  3. 3 Whether the appeal constitutes an abuse of the Court of Appeal's process warranting summary dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that dismissal of the motion to vary a final default judgment is a final judgment and therefore the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction; however the appeal was summarily dismissed as an abuse of process because of inexcusable delay, prejudice to the respondent, duplicative proceedings with the bankruptcy process, and the availability of the bankruptcy court to adjudicate the debt, with costs awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed summarily as an abuse of process; motion to quash dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • Motion to quash dismissed.
  • Appeal dismissed summarily as an abuse of this court's process.