Ingarra v. Cartel & Bui LLP

Ingarra v. Cartel & Bui LLP

Because the order appealed was an interlocutory default judgment and the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders, and because the proper remedy is a motion to set aside under Rule 19.08 (with restrictions in r.19.02(1)(b)), the appeal was frivolous and an abuse of process and must be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

Citation
2026 ONCA 139
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Johann Ingarra; Plaintiff (respondent): Anthony Ingarra; Plaintiff (respondent): John Paul Ingarra; Plaintiff (respondent): Paul Evans; Plaintiff (respondent): Shaun Henderson; Defendant (appellant): Cartel & Bui LLP; Defendant (appellant): Nicholas Cartel; Defendant (appellant): Singa Bui
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Collection / Appeal From Interlocutory Default Judgment Dismissed Under R.2.1.01; Default Judgment Originally Granted and Appeal Treated as Improper Route to Set Aside Default
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Abuse of Process, Jurisdiction of Appellate Court, Setting Aside Default, Rules of Civil Procedure R.2.1.01
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Jurisdiction Enforcement/collection Default Judgment Abuse of Process Jurisdiction of Appellate Court Setting Aside Default Rules of Civil Procedure R.2.1.01

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johann Ingarra

Plaintiff (respondent)

Anthony Ingarra

Plaintiff (respondent)

John Paul Ingarra

Plaintiff (respondent)

Paul Evans

Plaintiff (respondent)

Shaun Henderson

Plaintiff (respondent)

Cartel & Bui LLP

Defendant (appellant)

Nicholas Cartel

Defendant (appellant)

Singa Bui

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Collection / Appeal From Interlocutory Default Judgment Dismissed Under R.2.1.01; Default Judgment Originally Granted and Appeal Treated as Improper Route to Set Aside Default

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01
  3. 3 Whether the proper procedure to challenge a default judgment is a motion to set aside under Rule 19.08 and restricted by Rule 19.02(1)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

Because the order appealed was an interlocutory default judgment and the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders, and because the proper remedy is a motion to set aside under Rule 19.08 (with restrictions in r.19.02(1)(b)), the appeal was frivolous and an abuse of process and must be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.