Amex Bank of Canada v. DaCosta

Amex Bank of Canada v. DaCosta

The motion judge properly applied the Mountain View factors, and her factual findings of a lengthy unexplained delay and willful blindness outweighed the appellant's proposed defence (which met only the low "air of reality" threshold); there was no basis for appellate interference and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
2026 ONCA 181
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Amex Bank of Canada; Defendant (appellant): Terry Almeida DaCosta (also known as Terry DaCosta; also known as Terry Da Costa); Defendant (appellant): 166145 Ontario Limited carrying on business as Boss Services
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal From Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Procedural Law, Credit Card Debt, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Collection Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Procedural Law Credit Card Debt 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amex Bank of Canada

Plaintiff (respondent)

Terry Almeida DaCosta (also known as Terry DaCosta; also known as Terry Da Costa)

Defendant (appellant)

166145 Ontario Limited carrying on business as Boss Services

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal From Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing to set aside a default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the appellant demonstrated a plausible excuse for default or an arguable defence with an air of reality
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's unexplained delay disentitles relief

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge properly applied the Mountain View factors, and her factual findings of a lengthy unexplained delay and willful blindness outweighed the appellant's proposed defence (which met only the low "air of reality" threshold); there was no basis for appellate interference and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent, fixed at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, payable by the appellant.