Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Adequacy of personal service for a default judgment motion, including proof that the corporate defendant actually received the statement of claim and motion record.
• Compliance with prior judicial endorsements prescribing a specific in-writing default judgment procedure and timelines.
• Sufficiency of evidentiary support for the claim, notably the absence of the underlying invoice that formed the basis of the alleged debt.
• Accuracy and transparency of the plaintiff’s pre-judgment interest calculation, including the need for clear dates, rate, and per diem.
• Justification for substantial costs claimed in the Superior Court where the recovery amount falls within the Small Claims Court’s monetary jurisdiction.
• Effect of a separate CCAA stay order as to co-defendants, limiting the motion to a single defendant while the action is stayed against the others.

Facts of the case
Starkman Professional Corporation, also known as Starkman Lawyers, commenced an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Hakim Optical Laboratory Ltd., Evelyn Aimis Holdings Inc., and Hakim Optical Worldwide Lenses Inc. The claim was based on an unpaid invoice dated December 31, 2024, identified as invoice #7449 in the amount of $17,048.12. The statement of claim, dated April 1, 2025, pleaded this single invoice as the foundation of the alleged indebtedness, but no copy of the invoice itself was placed before the court in the motion record. As a result, the judge had no documentary detail regarding the services or charges that made up the invoice.

Separate from the specific default judgment motion, the broader litigation context was affected by insolvency proceedings. Hakim Optical Laboratory Ltd. and Hakim Optical Worldwide Lenses Inc. had obtained an order under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from Justice Black on June 27, 2025, staying the action as against those defendants. Consequently, the in-writing default judgment process proceeded only in relation to Evelyn Aimis Holdings Inc., with the claim against the other defendants effectively paused by the restructuring stay.

Procedural history and default judgment process
The procedural framework for obtaining default judgment in writing against Evelyn Aimis Holdings Inc. was set in motion by an endorsement of Justice Parghi dated October 15, 2025. That endorsement laid out a standard in-writing process: the plaintiff was required to serve a motion record, including the noting in default, the form of judgment sought, and a copy of the endorsement itself, on the defendant. Service was to be effected in accordance with the approach in Casa Manila Inc. v. Iannuccilli, which requires personal service and a basis for concluding that the defendant actually knows about the lawsuit.

Justice Parghi’s endorsement further contemplated that, if the defendant did not respond within the specified time, the in-writing default judgment motion could proceed in the week of December 1, 2025. Subsequently, on January 27, 2026, Justice Callaghan issued a further endorsement. That endorsement repeated the same standard in-writing procedure, apparently adjusting the timing so that the motion would be returnable in the week of March 23, 2026. Justice Dow, reviewing the record, noted that there was no clear explanation in the materials as to why the process had effectively been duplicated, though the substance of the required steps remained the same.

The matter was ultimately referred to Justice Dow as an in-writing motion, with the materials indicating a returnable date in the week of March 23, 2026. Justice Dow’s endorsement is dated May 11, 2026, and records that no one appeared on behalf of the defendant Evelyn Aimis Holdings Inc., while the plaintiff was represented by its principal, Paul H. Starkman.

Service and evidentiary deficiencies
The motion record dated October 17, 2025 was found to be materially deficient in several respects. First, on the critical issue of service, both the Parghi and Callaghan endorsements expressly required that the motion record be served on the defendant, Evelyn Aimis Holdings Inc., by personal service, consistent with Casa Manila. Each endorsement underscored that the affidavit of service should provide sufficient particulars to allow a judge to find that the defendant had received the statement of claim and the motion record or otherwise knew about the lawsuit.

Despite this clear direction, the affidavit of service sworn October 28, 2025 by the plaintiff firm’s articling student merely stated that the motion record was served by sending a copy by mail to “the Defendant’s last known address.” The affidavit did not specify which defendant was being referred to, and it did not demonstrate compliance with the requirement of personal service on Evelyn Aimis Holdings Inc. Nor did the materials show any subsequent effort to bring service into line with Justice Callaghan’s order. This gap went to the heart of whether default judgment could properly be granted at all.

Second, while the statement of claim identified invoice #7449 dated December 31, 2024 in the amount of $17,048.12 as the foundation of the debt, the actual invoice was missing from the motion record. The judge was therefore not provided with the underlying document that would explain how the amount was calculated, what services were rendered, and on what terms they were supplied. In a default judgment context, the court still requires adequate proof of the debt, and the omission of the invoice was a significant evidentiary weakness.

Interest and costs issues
Third, the plaintiff sought pre-judgment interest under section 128 of the Courts of Justice Act. The motion materials attempted to quantify this interest, but the calculations were inconsistent and not transparently explained. Within the motion record, pre-judgment interest was said to be $547.62 for the period from December 1, 2024 to September 17, 2025. In a requisition for default judgment, interest at 4.8 percent per year for 293 days to October 19, 2025 was calculated at $547.41. Justice Dow, however, calculated a different figure of $656.89 for the same or similar period and rate. The discrepancy between the numbers, coupled with the absence of a clear per diem breakdown, left the court without a reliable basis on which to fix pre-judgment interest to the date of judgment, which is typically required in default judgment orders.

Fourth, the statement of claim and motion record also sought costs. The plaintiff filed a Bill of Costs totaling $4,055.92 but did not provide any breakdown of the hours spent, the identities and roles of the timekeepers, or the hourly rates claimed. Crucially, there was also no explanation of why Rule 57.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure should not apply, given that the amount sought ($17,048.12 plus interest) fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court. In such circumstances, a Superior Court judge will ordinarily be cautious about awarding substantial costs without justification, and the absence of evidence and argument on this point further undermined the plaintiff’s position.

Outcome, successful party, and monetary result
Taken together, the deficiencies in service, the missing invoice, the unclear interest calculation, and the unsupported costs request led Justice Dow to dismiss the plaintiff’s in-writing motion. The motion was dismissed without prejudice, meaning Starkman Professional Corporation is permitted to renew its default judgment motion on fresh, properly prepared materials that address the concerns identified in the endorsement. Justice Dow also indicated that, if the motion is renewed in the Superior Court of Justice, he will seize himself of the matter and hear it again.

As a result of this decision, there is no judgment in favour of the plaintiff and no monetary recovery at this stage of the proceeding. The effective successful party on this motion is the defendant, Evelyn Aimis Holdings Inc., because the requested default judgment was refused. The court did not grant any amount for the principal debt, interest, or costs; the total monetary award, including damages and costs, is therefore zero, and no separate costs order in favour of any party can be determined from this endorsement.