Hans v. Mohammadi

Hans v. Mohammadi

The Court held that default judgments under Rule 19 are interlocutory; the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from such orders and the appellants must first move in the Superior Court under Rule 19.08 to set aside or vary the default judgment. The peculiar procedural posture did not convert the order into a final appealable judgment and there was no basis to treat the order as made under Rule 60.12(c).

Citation
C41096
Parties
Plaintiff: Jagjit Singh Hans; Defendant (appellant): Mohammad Mohammadi; Defendant (appellant): Maryam Jamili; Defendant (appellant): Nima Mohammadi; Defendant (appellant): Khayam Investment Group Ltd.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Superior Court Motion / Appeal From Motions Judge Order Granting Default Judgment and Resurrecting Dismissed Action
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal, Rule 19.05, Rule 19.08, Rule 60.12
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Appeal Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Jurisdiction of Court of Appeal Rule 19.05 Rule 19.08 Rule 60.12

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jagjit Singh Hans

Plaintiff

Mohammad Mohammadi

Defendant (appellant)

Maryam Jamili

Defendant (appellant)

Nima Mohammadi

Defendant (appellant)

Khayam Investment Group Ltd.

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Superior Court Motion / Appeal From Motions Judge Order Granting Default Judgment and Resurrecting Dismissed Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a default judgment granted under Rule 19
  2. 2 Whether a default judgment under Rule 19 is a final judgment for purposes of s.6(1)(b) Courts of Justice Act
  3. 3 Whether the motions judge had authority to note defendants in default and grant default judgment and whether Rule 60.12(c) applied

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that default judgments under Rule 19 are interlocutory; the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from such orders and the appellants must first move in the Superior Court under Rule 19.08 to set aside or vary the default judgment. The peculiar procedural posture did not convert the order into a final appealable judgment and there was no basis to treat the order as made under Rule 60.12(c).