Paccar Leasing Company Limited v. Sevco Corporation

Paccar Leasing Company Limited v. Sevco Corporation

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge because the appellants neither paid the outstanding costs nor filed evidence to support their claim of impecuniosity and offered no evidentiary basis for their pending motion; absent such compliance or evidence, striking the statement of defence was proper and not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 ONCA 503
Parties
Respondent: Paccar Leasing Company Limited; Appellant: Sevco Corporation; Appellant: Kardel Inc.; Appellant: Elize Blouin aka Elizabeth Blouin; Appellant: Susan Blouin; Appellant: Susan Hebert; Appellant: Gregory Blouin; Appellant: Gregory Hebert
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Superior Court Motion to Strike Statement of Defence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; order striking appellants' statement of defence affirmed.
Legal Topics
Motion to Strike Statement of Defence, Impecuniosity, Compliance With Costs Orders, Striking Defendants
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Costs Motion to Strike Statement of Defence Impecuniosity Compliance With Costs Orders Striking Defendants

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paccar Leasing Company Limited

Respondent

Sevco Corporation

Appellant

Kardel Inc.

Appellant

Elize Blouin aka Elizabeth Blouin

Appellant

Susan Blouin

Appellant

Susan Hebert

Appellant

Gregory Blouin

Appellant

Gregory Hebert

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Superior Court Motion to Strike Statement of Defence

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in striking the appellants' statement of defence
  2. 2 Whether the appellants provided evidence of impecuniosity or paid outstanding costs to avoid striking
  3. 3 Whether there was evidentiary support for appellants' separate pending motion to strike them as defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge because the appellants neither paid the outstanding costs nor filed evidence to support their claim of impecuniosity and offered no evidentiary basis for their pending motion; absent such compliance or evidence, striking the statement of defence was proper and not subject to appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; order striking appellants' statement of defence affirmed.

Orders

  • Order striking the appellants' statement of defence affirmed.
  • Costs of the appeal to the responding parties fixed in the agreed upon amount of $4,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.