Dreamfund Holdings Inc. v. Yusuf

Dreamfund Holdings Inc. v. Yusuf

The appellants failed to demonstrate any basis to set aside the default judgment: they made no concrete defence attempts, service complaints did not vitiate the default noting, the uncontested trial was lawful under r.19.02(3), and the proper procedure to challenge a default judgment is a motion under r.19.08(2) rather than an initial appeal; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

Citation
2024 ONCA 335
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Issa Yusuf; Defendant (appellant): Dreamfund Holdings Inc.; Defendant (appellant): 10268054 Canada Corp.; Defendant (appellant): Dreammaker Realty Inc. also known as Dream Maker Developments Inc.; Defendant (appellant): Isaac Jr. Olowolafe also known as Temitope Olowolafe
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
1 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Judgment (default Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Service of Process, Uncontested Trial, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Enforcement of Judgments Default Judgment Setting Aside Default Judgment Service of Process Uncontested Trial 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Issa Yusuf

Plaintiff (respondent)

Dreamfund Holdings Inc.

Defendant (appellant)

10268054 Canada Corp.

Defendant (appellant)

Dreammaker Realty Inc. also known as Dream Maker Developments Inc.

Defendant (appellant)

Isaac Jr. Olowolafe also known as Temitope Olowolafe

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Judgment (default Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the uncontested trial was properly ordered and conducted
  3. 3 Whether defects in service or lack of representation invalidated the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to demonstrate any basis to set aside the default judgment: they made no concrete defence attempts, service complaints did not vitiate the default noting, the uncontested trial was lawful under r.19.02(3), and the proper procedure to challenge a default judgment is a motion under r.19.08(2) rather than an initial appeal; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the respondent in the amount $9,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, payable by the appellants