Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Default judgment was entered after the defendant failed to respond to a properly served notice of civil claim.

• The defendant argued inadvertent non-receipt of the claim, relying on procedural rules to seek reversal.

• The plaintiff maintained that the defendant had actual notice of the lawsuit and intentionally ignored it.

• Dispute centered on who contracted for and owed payment for the supplied aggregate: PVC or a third party (Northlink).

• The court found the defendant’s explanation for non-response implausible and unsupported by credible affidavit evidence.

• Meritorious defence was not convincingly demonstrated, largely due to hearsay and absence of key witness testimony.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved

The case was heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The plaintiff, Soucie Construction Ltd., filed a claim on July 22, 2024, against the defendant, Progressive Ventures Construction Ltd. (PVC), relating to unpaid invoices for concrete aggregate supplied for work at the Red Chris Mine in northern British Columbia. Newcrest Red Chris Mining Ltd. was also named as a defendant, though it did not play a substantive role in this particular judgment.

Soucie alleged that PVC had contracted it to supply the aggregate, but PVC had failed to pay. PVC denied the debt, claiming instead that the materials were ordered and paid for by a third party, Northlink Supply Ltd., with whom Soucie had a direct arrangement. Soucie disputed this and pointed to an open purchase order (PO#33984) with PVC that it argued governed the transactions.

Procedural posture and the default judgment

PVC was served with the Notice of Civil Claim and a garnishing order by registered mail on July 26, 2024, at its registered office. Despite this, it failed to file a response. Soucie subsequently obtained default judgment on October 30, 2024, for $219,803.73 in damages, $20,741.35 in interest, and court costs to be assessed.

PVC later applied to set aside the default judgment, arguing that the NOCC had been overlooked or not brought to the attention of the right individuals within the company. It claimed the failure to respond was inadvertent, not deliberate, and that it had a meritorious defence. The application was heard on June 9, 2025.

Court’s analysis

Justice G.P. Weatherill analyzed the application under both Rule 3-8(11) and Rule 4-7(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, referencing the leading Miracle Feeds factors. These include whether the failure to respond was wilful, whether the application was made promptly, whether there is a meritorious defence, and whether proper affidavit evidence supports the application.

The court found PVC’s explanation for failing to respond implausible. Evidence showed the company president was notified of the garnishing order and had access to the NOCC as early as July 24, 2024, yet took no action until after judgment was entered. The court also found the defence presented by PVC lacking in credibility, heavily reliant on hearsay, and unsupported by key witnesses who could have addressed the central factual issues.

Judgment and outcome

Justice Weatherill concluded that PVC had not demonstrated it was unaware of the action, nor had it provided a convincing reason for its inaction. The supposed defence lacked admissible, first-hand evidence and did not reach the threshold of being meritorious or worthy of investigation. The court emphasized the importance of holding parties accountable for procedural defaults when they have knowledge of a claim and choose not to act.

The application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed. The judgment of $219,803.73 in damages and $20,741.35 in interest stands, and the court also awarded Scale B costs against PVC. The total award (excluding assessed costs) is $240,545.08.