Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Wrongful dismissal claim initiated by a former employee against her employer.

• Persistent procedural delays and misconduct by the defendant led to the striking of its Statement of Defence.

• Repeated, unsuccessful attempts by the defendant to appeal procedural rulings and re-enter the litigation.

• The court assessed whether a defaulting defendant could make submissions after its defence was struck, ultimately finding it would be an abuse of process.

• Default judgment awarded to the plaintiff due to the defendant’s litigation conduct.

• The case underscores the consequences of procedural non-compliance and abuse of court process.

Facts of the case

Jan Ferguson, the plaintiff, was terminated from her employment with Yorkwest Plumbing Supply Inc. in March 2017. Following her dismissal, she commenced a wrongful dismissal action in August 2018. Throughout the litigation, Yorkwest Plumbing Supply Inc. repeatedly engaged in delays and obstructive behavior, such as failing to respond to communications and cancelling scheduled discoveries at the last minute. These actions caused significant delays in the progress of the case and were noted in various court judgments.

Procedural history and litigation conduct

The defendant’s persistent delaying tactics and misconduct led to the striking of its Statement of Defence in August 2022 by Associate Justice Jolley. Yorkwest attempted to appeal this decision before Justice Leiper and later sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, but both efforts were unsuccessful. Yorkwest also sought leave to introduce new evidence at trial, which was denied. As a result, Yorkwest was left without a valid defence in the action.

Default judgment and subsequent proceedings

On September 23, 2025, the court granted default judgment in favor of Ms. Ferguson, awarding her $170,415.42 in damages, plus $6,879 in costs and disbursements, inclusive of HST. After the judgment was issued, Yorkwest’s counsel attempted to submit a factum responding to the motion for default judgment, arguing that the court had not considered their submissions. The court temporarily vacated its endorsement to allow for further consideration and a case conference with both parties.

Legal arguments and court’s analysis

Yorkwest relied on case law suggesting that a defendant noted in default may still make submissions in response to a plaintiff’s motion. However, the court distinguished the present case from those precedents, emphasizing that Yorkwest’s defence had been struck due to its own misconduct and that all avenues of appeal had been exhausted. The court found that allowing Yorkwest to make submissions at this stage would constitute an abuse of process, given the history of delay and procedural non-compliance.

Outcome and final order

After considering all submissions and the procedural history, the court dismissed Yorkwest’s request for leave to make submissions and reinstated the default judgment originally granted on September 23, 2025. The successful party in this case is Jan Ferguson, who was awarded a total of $170,415.42 in damages and $6,879 in costs and disbursements, for a combined total monetary award of $177,294.42. This decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the serious consequences of litigation misconduct.