Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff moved for default judgment after the defendants' statement of defence was struck and they were noted in default.
   
• Service of the motion record for damages had not been effected on any of the defendants.
   
• Damages claimed on the motion exceeded the monetary jurisdiction available under the simplified procedure rules.
   
• Venue was contested, as none of the parties had any connection to the county in which the action was commenced.
   
• Hearsay evidence, including a witness statement and an incomplete tax return exhibit, undermined the evidentiary basis for the motion.
   
• Justice Ramsay adjourned the motion without prejudice pending resolution of these threshold issues.
   

Facts of the case

Terry Della Maestra worked for the defendants for over 15 years before his employment was terminated without notice. He commenced a wrongful dismissal action against Blue Line Distribution Limited, Automan Express Inc., and Harjinder Chhinjer in May 2023. The defendants, initially represented by counsel, delivered a statement of defence in February 2024, but their counsel later got off the record. Associate Justice Abrams ordered the defendants to retain new counsel or file a notice of intent to act in person within a set period; they did not comply. As a result, Associate Justice Rappos struck the statement of defence in March 2026, and the plaintiff noted the defendants in default that same month. The plaintiff then brought this motion for default judgment under rule 19.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Several procedural rules governed the threshold issues before the court. Rule 19.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allowed the plaintiff to move for default judgment, while rule 19.06 required the motion judge to withhold judgment unless the pleaded facts entitled the plaintiff to it. Unliquidated damages had to be proven by affidavit evidence under rule 19.05(2). Because the claim was commenced under rule 76 governing simplified procedure actions, rule 76.02(1) capped the amount claimable at $200,000, exclusive of interest and costs. On venue, rules 13.1.01(2) and 13.1.02 addressed whether the action was commenced in the proper county and set out the process, including a mandatory case conference under rule 50.13, for transferring a proceeding to a different county. Section 242(2) of the Business Corporations Act was also relevant to whether the corporate defendants remained in existence and how service could be effected on them if not.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Ramsay identified four threshold problems that prevented the motion from proceeding. First, the affidavits on file did not establish that any of the defendants had been served with the Motion Record for damages, despite Justice Akazaki's earlier order directing service; it was also unclear whether the corporate defendants still existed. Second, the plaintiff sought $460,636.94 for wrongful dismissal, $22,788.48 for unpaid wages, and $2,183.17 for unpaid expenses, plus aggravated and bad faith damages, all of which exceeded the $200,000 monetary jurisdiction of a simplified procedure action, and no evidence showed the plaintiff had sought to continue the action under the ordinary procedure. Third, none of the parties had any connection to Toronto — the defendants were located in Brampton or Burlington and the plaintiff resided in Hamilton — raising a live question of proper venue. Fourth, the record contained hearsay, including an unsworn witness statement and a purported T4 that was actually a partial tax return, with the exhibits attached to the plaintiff's affidavit not constituting sworn evidence on their own. Drawing on the framework in Elekta Ltd. v. Rodkin and the principle from Salimijazi v. Pakjou that default judgment cannot be granted unless the pleaded facts entitle the plaintiff to it, the court found these evidentiary and procedural gaps prevented it from granting judgment at this stage.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Ramsay adjourned the motion for default judgment without prejudice to the plaintiff. The court directed the plaintiff to convene a case conference under rule 50.13 to resolve the outstanding venue issue, with counsel able to schedule a virtual conference before any available judge to address that question before a return date is set. As the motion was adjourned rather than decided, no damages were awarded or costs ordered in favour of either party, and the endorsement notes that Justice Ramsay is not seized of the motion going forward.