Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute arose over AIM Corporate Services Inc.’s claim for repayment of $6,815.83 in salary overpayments to Steven Patrick Duckering after his employment ended.

• The adequacy and legality of service of the originating judicial application on Mr. Duckering was challenged, with multiple attempts at notification documented.

• Mr. Duckering asserted he did not receive written notice of termination, a claim contradicted by the letter of termination produced in court.

• Claims by Mr. Duckering for unpaid vacation ($2,930.00) and unpaid salary ($9,769.34) were unsupported by documentation or detailed explanation.

• The court examined whether Mr. Duckering’s failure to respond was due to excusable circumstances or his own negligence.

• The seriousness and sufficiency of Mr. Duckering’s defenses and counterclaims were found lacking by the court.

Facts of the case

AIM Corporate Services Inc. brought an action against its former employee, Steven Patrick Duckering, seeking to recover $6,815.83 that had been overpaid to him following the termination of his employment. On June 13, 2024, Mr. Duckering was informed by AIM representatives that his employment was ending, was given a notice of termination, collected his personal belongings, and left the workplace. Despite this, AIM’s payroll department failed to stop salary payments, resulting in Mr. Duckering receiving three additional payments of $2,969.10, which together formed the total amount claimed by AIM.

AIM sent a formal demand for repayment on November 29, 2024. Mr. Duckering communicated with AIM’s counsel, requesting additional time to respond and to consult a lawyer. Several attempts were made to serve Mr. Duckering with the originating judicial application, including at his last known address in Montreal and at an address in Calgary, Alberta. The process server left documents at the Calgary address after unsuccessful attempts to serve him in person, and AIM’s counsel also sent courtesy copies of the documents by email. Mr. Duckering was repeatedly informed that AIM would proceed with the legal claim and seek judgment by default if he did not respond.

Procedural history and legal issues

On June 17, 2025, a default judgment was rendered against Mr. Duckering, ordering him to pay AIM Corporate Services Inc. $6,815.83 with interest at the legal rate and an additional indemnity. Mr. Duckering subsequently filed a motion for retraction of judgment, arguing that he had not been properly served and that AIM’s counsel had led him to believe that proceedings would not advance during settlement discussions.

The court examined whether Mr. Duckering was prevented from defending himself by fraud, surprise, or another sufficient cause under article 346 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court found that Mr. Duckering had received the necessary documents on multiple occasions, both by methods deemed equivalent to personal service and by email. The court also found that Mr. Duckering’s claim that he had not received written notice of termination was contradicted by the evidence, and his counterclaims for unpaid vacation and salary were not supported by any documentation or detailed explanation.

Outcome

The court determined that Mr. Duckering’s failure to respond was not excusable, as he was aware of the proceedings and had been properly notified. His motion for retraction of judgment was rejected. AIM Corporate Services Inc. remained the successful party, with Mr. Duckering ordered to pay $6,815.83, plus interest at the legal rate, an additional indemnity, and court costs. The exact amount for costs was not specified in the decision.