Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff relied on defendants’ failure to respond to a Request to Admit as grounds for judgment under Rule 51.06.

• Court found the procedural default resulted in deemed admissions under Rule 51.03.

• Defendants were given a final opportunity to bring a proper motion to withdraw the admissions under Rule 51.05.

• Corporate defendant was barred from further self-representation due to procedural complexity and legal requirements.

• Prejudgment interest continues to accrue while the matter remains unresolved.

• No final winner has been declared; the plaintiff’s motion for judgment is under reserve pending further proceedings.

Facts of the case

Thermo Coustics Limited commenced a civil action under Ontario’s Construction Act, seeking payment of $20,353.35 for asbestos abatement services performed in 2020 on a property owned by Walter Pareja. A portion of that property was leased to Resilience Lifestyle Inc., a company owned by his daughter, Paola Pareja-Garcia. The dispute revolved around two unpaid invoices issued in September and November of that year. The action was filed in December 2020. Both defendants submitted statements of defence in January 2021, with Resilience initially represented by legal counsel.

As the matter approached trial in May 2025, the plaintiff served a motion for judgment under Rule 51.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The basis of the motion was the defendants’ failure to respond to a Request to Admit served in August 2024. Under Rule 51.03, this failure constituted deemed admissions of the facts and documents listed in the request. The plaintiff relied solely on this procedural default after abandoning a second, more recent request that had potentially been responded to late.

Court’s analysis and findings

The court considered whether the defendants should be granted leave to withdraw the deemed admissions. Although the defendants requested such leave during the hearing, the court found their approach procedurally deficient. Despite this, Justice Ellies held that fairness warranted giving them a chance to bring a proper motion under Rule 51.05. This decision was based in part on the timing of the plaintiff's judgment motion, which was served just days before the rescheduled trial, and on the lack of significant prejudice to the plaintiff, which maintained a lien on the property as security for its claim.

Justice Ellies emphasized that a motion to withdraw deemed admissions would likely require affidavit evidence from the defendants’ former lawyer, who had received the initial Request to Admit while still counsel of record. The judge warned that laypersons would struggle to navigate the legal and evidentiary issues such a motion would involve. Consequently, the court revoked permission for Paola Pareja-Garcia to represent the corporate defendant Resilience Lifestyle Inc. going forward, as required under Rule 15.01(2).

A detailed timetable was set for the defendants to serve and file their motion record by June 20, 2025, with subsequent procedural steps outlined to ensure the matter progresses efficiently. The judge confirmed that prejudgment interest would continue to accrue while the judgment motion remains under reserve. Should the defendants fail to meet the deadlines or be unsuccessful in their withdrawal motion, the court will then issue a decision on the plaintiff's motion for judgment and costs.

Outcome and procedural posture

No final judgment has been rendered yet. The plaintiff’s motion for judgment remains under reserve pending the defendants’ opportunity to file a proper motion to withdraw the deemed admissions. The court has imposed strict procedural deadlines and conditions. If the defendants do not comply or are unsuccessful, the plaintiff’s motion will proceed, likely resulting in judgment in its favour. In the meantime, prejudgment interest continues to accumulate on the outstanding claim.