Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Application focused on whether a default judgment should be set aside under Rule 3-8(11) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.

• The defendant argued he had a valid defense and did not willfully default on responding to the civil claim.

• Evidence showed plaintiff's counsel was notified of defense counsel's involvement yet proceeded without further notice.

• The court examined professional conduct norms and expectations of courtesy between counsel.

• Affidavit evidence from the defendant supported a defense regarding billing discrepancies and construction quality.

• The judge concluded that justice required setting aside the judgment to allow the matter to proceed on its merits.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and contractual dispute

The case arose from a dispute between a construction company and a property owner in British Columbia. Anvir Singh Boora contracted Harkirat Construction Ltd. in February 2023 to build a two-storey structure on his property in Keremeos, BC, consisting of a fruit stand on the ground floor and three two-bedroom units above. The contract amount was $526,000, but Harkirat later invoiced an additional $339,150 for what it claimed were extra services beyond the original scope. Boora refused to pay the additional sum, asserting that the work was within the original contract and that the construction was of substandard quality, requiring remediation at his own cost.

Procedural history and default judgment

Harkirat filed a notice of civil claim on August 8, 2024. Although Boora was served on August 29, he did not file a response within the required 21 days. His counsel did reach out to Harkirat’s counsel on September 10, 2024, asking not to proceed with default without notice, but received no reply. Despite further emails in January 2025 requesting documentation and reiterating the intention to defend the case, Harkirat proceeded to obtain a default judgment on January 15, 2025. The order was served on Boora six days later.

The defendant’s application to set aside

Boora promptly applied to set aside the default judgment, arguing that he always intended to defend the claim and had a legitimate dispute over both the amount and quality of the work. His affidavit detailed his contention that the charges were unjustified and that significant deficiencies in construction required costly repairs. The court accepted that these claims raised at least a defense worthy of investigation.

Legal principles and professional conduct

The court applied the established criteria from Miracle Feeds v. D. & H. Enterprises for setting aside default judgments, focusing on whether the failure to respond was deliberate, whether the application was made promptly, and whether there was a meritorious defense. Additionally, the judgment emphasized professional conduct expectations, highlighting the responsibility of counsel not to seek default judgment when aware that opposing counsel is involved, in line with BC’s Code of Professional Conduct.

Decision and consequences

Justice Hewson found that Boora's delay in filing a response, while not ideal, was not sufficient to justify letting the default stand. The court held that the interests of justice favored setting aside the default judgment to allow the dispute to be resolved on its merits. The order for default judgment was vacated, and Boora was given 21 days to file his response to the civil claim. He was also awarded costs for the application, though no specific amount was stated.

Conclusion

The ruling reinforces both procedural fairness and professional standards of legal practice. While deadlines matter, courts retain discretion to ensure substantive justice, especially when parties act in good faith and maintain communication, even imperfectly. The case now returns to the litigation stage for resolution of the underlying contractual dispute.