Johal v. RK Olympic Development Inc.

Johal v. RK Olympic Development Inc.

The court accepted the defendants' affidavits as satisfying the onus that the failure to enter an appearance was not wilful or deliberate (given lack of personal awareness, solicitor breakdown and a director's post-operative incapacity), found the application was made promptly once knowledge was obtained, the existence of a meritorious defence was conceded, and therefore set aside the default judgment; costs were reserved as 'costs in the cause' with the plaintiff entitled to costs of filing the default judgment and costs of enforcement steps taken under the judgment.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1908
Parties
Plaintiff: Satnam Johal; Defendant: RK Olympic Development Ltd.; Defendant: Raj Kumar Arora; Defendant: Rajesh Gupta; Defendant: Costa Penn; Defendant: Karamjeet Bhangoo
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil: Application to Set Aside Default Judgment / Chambers Oral Reasons for Judgment (application to Set Aside Default Judgment)
Outcome
Application granted; default judgment set aside
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Service of Process, Setting Aside Judgment, Costs, Directors' Knowledge
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Corporate Law Enforcement Default Judgment Service of Process Setting Aside Judgment Costs Directors' Knowledge

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Satnam Johal

Plaintiff

RK Olympic Development Ltd.

Defendant

Raj Kumar Arora

Defendant

Rajesh Gupta

Defendant

Costa Penn

Defendant

Karamjeet Bhangoo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Application to Set Aside Default Judgment / Chambers Oral Reasons for Judgment (application to Set Aside Default Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant wilfully or deliberately failed to enter an appearance or file a defence
  2. 2 Whether the application to set aside was made promptly or delay is excused
  3. 3 Whether there is a meritorious defence worthy of investigation

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the defendants' affidavits as satisfying the onus that the failure to enter an appearance was not wilful or deliberate (given lack of personal awareness, solicitor breakdown and a director's post-operative incapacity), found the application was made promptly once knowledge was obtained, the existence of a meritorious defence was conceded, and therefore set aside the default judgment; costs were reserved as 'costs in the cause' with the plaintiff entitled to costs of filing the default judgment and costs of enforcement steps taken under the judgment.

Court Disposition

Application granted; default judgment set aside

Orders

  • Default judgment obtained August 13, 2008 set aside
  • Costs reserved as costs in the cause; plaintiff awarded costs of filing the default judgment and costs of steps taken in execution/enforcement of the judgment