Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Parallel mortgage enforcement actions by private lenders against the same borrowers over the same residential property, resulting in substantial default judgments and orders for possession.
• Defendants’ attempt to set aside default judgments under Rule 19.08, raising alleged defences of fraud, unconscionability, concealment, false promises, breach of good faith, misrepresentation, conspiracy, unjust enrichment and predatory lending conduct.
• Allegations that both mortgages and enforcement steps formed part of a coordinated “loan-to-own” scheme, including concerns about a lawyer allegedly acting for both private lenders and borrowers simultaneously.
• Application in principle of the Mountain View line of authority on setting aside default judgments, focusing on promptness, explanation for default, arguable defence, prejudice, and the integrity of the administration of justice.
• Practical resolution of the motions through negotiated settlement and adjournment, rather than a merits ruling on the existence or validity of the defendants’ alleged defences.
• Indulgence granted to the defendants by allowing additional time to refinance and satisfy their indebtedness while preserving the lenders’ ability to obtain writs of possession after a defined grace period.

Factual background
The proceedings arise out of two connected mortgage enforcement actions concerning the same residential property in Oakville, Ontario, which served as the family home of the defendants, spouses Rajbinder Daid and Ramjit Jaswal. In October 2024, when the defendants purchased this property, two private mortgages were registered on title. The first was a mortgage in favour of 2534747 Ontario Inc. and Adam Caputo, referred to as the 253 Mortgage, with a principal amount of $1,350,000. The second was a private second mortgage in favour of individual lender Aneta Soares, in the principal amount of $68,000.
In March 2025, the 253 Mortgage was assigned to Sanco Capital Corporation, which then renewed the mortgage in April 2025. By August 21, 2025, the defendants had fallen into default under this first mortgage. That default eventually led Sanco, as assignee and mortgagee, to commence an action to enforce its security and recover the outstanding indebtedness.

The two related actions and default judgments
The first action, Court File No. CV-25-3291, is brought by plaintiff Aneta Soares against defendants Daid and Jaswal under the second private mortgage, described as the Soares Mortgage. The defendants were noted in default and did not defend in time, leading to a default judgment on December 15, 2025. That judgment awarded Soares $75,642.08, plus costs and post-judgment interest, together with a judgment for possession of the Oakville property. A formal judgment for possession in favour of Soares issued on January 7, 2026.
The second action, Court File No. CV-25-5064, is brought by Sanco Capital Corporation against the same defendants, Daid and Jaswal, under the first mortgage now referred to as the Sanco Mortgage. Again, the defendants were noted in default. On January 20, 2026, the court granted default judgment in favour of Sanco in the amount of $1,479,267.12, plus costs and post-judgment interest, along with a judgment for possession of the same property.

Motions to set aside the default judgments
Facing two substantial default judgments and the risk of losing their family home, the defendants brought motions in both actions to set aside the default judgments. Their motions are both dated February 9, 2026, and were heard together on March 12, 2026. Both plaintiffs, Soares and Sanco, opposed the relief sought.
In support of their motions, the defendants relied principally on an affidavit sworn by defendant Daid. Beginning at paragraph 34 of that affidavit, the defendants asserted that they had multiple “meritorious defences” to both claims. They alleged that the default judgments had been obtained through fraudulent misrepresentations and coordinated conduct by interconnected parties, characterizing both cases as part of a single “loan-to-own” scheme. The defendants also alleged that one lawyer involved had acted simultaneously for both the private lenders and for them, raising conflict of interest concerns.

Alleged defences and legal theories advanced by the defendants
While no detailed findings are made on the merits, the affidavit outlines an array of legal theories the defendants intended to advance by way of defence, set-off and counterclaim. These included allegations of fraud, unconscionability, concealment, and false promises said to surround the lending and mortgage arrangements. The defendants claimed they remained willing to continue making mortgage payments and to arrange refinancing, which they argued ought to have been accommodated.
They further alleged breach of the duty of good faith, fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy and unjust enrichment, and labelled the lenders’ conduct as predatory, said to warrant punitive damages. As part of their intended response to both actions, the defendants signalled an intention to assert set-off and/or counterclaims against each of Soares and Sanco.
The court did not determine whether any of these alleged defences or counterclaims were viable. Instead, they were treated as part of the context in which the motions under Rule 19.08 were brought and then ultimately resolved through agreement between the parties.

Legal framework for setting aside default judgments
The judge summarized the well-settled legal framework governing motions to set aside default judgments under Rule 19.08 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure. The overarching consideration is whether the interests of justice favour setting aside the judgment. The exercise of discretion is guided by several factors, which are not rigid rules and need not all point in the same direction or carry equal weight.
The key factors identified were: whether the motion was brought promptly after the defendant learned of the default judgment; whether the defendant has a plausible excuse or explanation for the delay; whether the defendant has an arguable defence on the merits; the potential prejudice to the defendant if the motion is dismissed balanced against the prejudice to the plaintiff if the motion is allowed; and the effect of any order on the integrity of the administration of justice. On the merits factor, the standard is described as relatively relaxed, requiring only an “air of reality” to the proposed defence rather than a full merits assessment.
The court cited recent authority from the Court of Appeal for Ontario, including Mcllwain v. Len’s Cove Marina Ltd. and its reliance on the seminal decision in Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen, as well as Intact Insurance Company v. Kisel and Zeifman Partners Inc. v. Aiello, for this structured yet flexible approach to Rule 19.08 motions. Despite outlining the test, the judge did not proceed to apply it in a fulsome way, because the parties resolved the motions without requiring an adjudicated ruling.

Outcome of the motions and practical resolution
Ultimately, the court did not decide whether the default judgments in favour of Soares and Sanco should be set aside. Instead, counsel for all parties negotiated a practical resolution to the motions. In the Sanco action, the defendants’ motion to set aside the default judgment was adjourned sine die while counsel continued to work out the remaining details between the parties. This left the default judgment intact while allowing further discussions and potential restructuring or refinancing options to be explored.
In the Soares action, the parties executed Minutes of Settlement, which were filed with the court. Under this settlement, the defendants were granted an indulgence in the form of additional time to refinance the property and pay off their indebtedness to Soares. Writs of possession could still be obtained, preserving the lenders’ enforcement rights, but those writs were not to be executed until the expiry of a further grace period, giving the borrowers a last window to salvage their position through refinancing. The judge expressly commended counsel for both sides for achieving a sensible compromise that balanced enforcement rights with the defendants’ financial hardship, describing it as a reasonable resolution rather than a capitulation.

Successful parties and monetary amounts ordered
From a strictly legal standpoint on the underlying claims, the successful parties on the default judgments are the plaintiff lenders, Soares and Sanco. Soares obtained a default judgment for $75,642.08 plus costs and post-judgment interest, and Sanco obtained a default judgment for $1,479,267.12 plus costs and post-judgment interest. Together, these judgments represent a total principal monetary award of $1,554,909.20 in favour of the lenders, in addition to both plaintiffs’ rights to possession of the property. The endorsement does not specify the quantum of costs or interest, nor does it detail any monetary adjustments or concessions that may form part of the settlements and adjournment arrangements, so the total overall amount including costs and interest cannot be determined from this decision alone.