Goulet v. da Silva et al., 2002 ABQB 369

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 03, 2002
• Citations: 2002 ABQB 369;(2002), 313 A.R. 32 (QB)

Goulet v. da Silva (2002), 313 A.R. 32 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. AP.116

Richard Goulet (plaintiff/respondent) v. Luisa da Silva (defendant/applicant) and Devon Capital Corporation and Mitchell Seagrave

(defendants/not parties to motion)

(Action No. 0003 23300; 2002 ABQB 369)

Indexed As: Goulet v. da Silva et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

April 8, 2002.

Summary:

Moreau, J., granted the plaintiff judgment against the defendants Seagrave and da Silva for $45,000 plus costs. da Silva applied pursuant to rule 158 to set aside the judgment and for leave to file a statement of defence in the action. da Silva contended that the judgment was "entered upon default of defence" under rule 158. The plaintiff argued that the judgment was a final judgment which could not be reviewed by an equal judge and could only be set aside by the Court of Appeal.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the judgment was entered by default of defence within the meaning of rule 158. The court set aside the judgment and ordered that da Silva be allowed to file a statement of defence within 15 days. da Silva was also to deposit $2,500 as security for the plaintiff's thrown away costs.

Practice - Topic 2641

Service - Generally - General - Rule 13(1) of the Rules of Court provided that "[a] document required by these Rules to be served need not be served personally unless personal service is expressly prescribed by these Rules or by order of the Court" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench commented that "if a party chooses to serve other than by personal service through resort to this rule, it is at least arguable that any time limitation applicable to such service must run from the effective date of service, not from the date of the step purporting to be service" - See paragraphs 22 to 23.

Practice - Topic 5602

Judgments and orders - Default judgments - Defined - The plaintiff sued da Silva alleging fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation - The plaintiff moved for judgment against da Silva pursuant to rule 152 - Moreau, J., set the matter over and required the plaintiff to file a better affidavit in support of the motion for judgment and a draft judgment - The plaintiff filed a further affidavit - Moreau, J., signed the draft judgment, granting the plaintiff judgment against da Silva - da Silva applied pursuant to rule 158 to set aside the judgment and for leave to file a statement of defence in the action - da Silva contended that the judgment was "entered upon default of defence" under rule 158 - The plaintiff argued that the judgment was a final judgment which could not be reviewed by an equal judge and could only be set aside by the Court of Appeal - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the judgment of Moreau, J., was entered upon default of defence and rule 158 applied.

Cases Noticed:

Degelder Construction Co. v. Dancorp Developments Ltd. et al., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 90; 231 N.R. 122; 113 B.C.A.C. 1; 184 W.A.C. 1; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 20 C.R.(5th) 77; 165 D.L.R.(4th) 417; [1999] 5 W.W.R. 797, affing. (1996), 73 B.C.A.C. 45; 120 W.A.C. 45; 21 B.C.L.R.(3d) 112 (C.A.), affing. (1994), 16 B.L.R.(2d) 188 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 1].

Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 87; 147 N.R. 169; 60 O.A.C. 1; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 626, reving. (1999), 38 O.A.C. 180; 74 O.R.(2d) 176; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 288; 30 C.C.E.L. 1; 90 C.C.L.C. 14,024 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15, footnote 2].

Chiste and Chiste v. Northern Electric Co. et al. (1978), 14 A.R. 559; 8 C.P.C. 180 (Q.B. Master), dist. [para. 40, footnote 3].

Raimundo v. Huculak, [1979] A.J. No. 70 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 4].

Beardy v. Sass et al. (1997), 118 Man.R.(2d) 99; 149 W.A.C. 99 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 6].

Evans v. Bartlam, [1937] A.C. 473; [1937] 2 All E.R. 646 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 7].

Costa v. Sanavik Co-operative Association Ltd. and Arctex Contractors Ltd. (1979), 24 A.R. 417 (N.W.T.S.C.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 8].

Webmor Financial Services Ltd. v. James M. Drummond Holdings Ltd., Da-Lin Developments Ltd., Arnholtz and Drummond (1981), 33 A.R. 493 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 9].

North Pacific Mortgage Co. v. Toner and Toner, [1931] 3 W.W.R. 395 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 10].

Pearson Financial Group Ltd. v. Takla Star Resources Ltd. et al. (2002), 299 A.R. 351; 266 W.A.C. 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 11].

Burbank v. O'Flaherty (1977), 13 O.R.(2d) 769; 2 C.P.C. 3 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 12].

Toronto General Trusts Corp. v. Rosenfield, [1925] 4 D.L.R. 896 (Ont. S.C.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 13].

Barrigar et al. v. DeLong et al., [2002] A.R. Uned. 59 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 14].

National Arts Service Corp. and Carmelly v. Bank of British Columbia (1981), 31 A.R. 205 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 63, footnote 15].

Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 460; 272 N.R. 1; 149 O.A.C. 1; 201 D.L.R.(4th) 193, reving. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 225; 42 O.R.(3d) 235; 167 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 12 Admin. L.R.(3d) 1; 41 C.C.E.L.(2d) 19; 27 C.P.C.(4th) 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 64, footnote 16].

Wilson Arches Ltd. v. Sayer, [1974] 2 W.W.R. 277 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 17].

Alberta v. Duffy; Alberta v. Culshaw (1981), 31 A.R. 560 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 18].

Nordic Neon Graphics Ltd. v. Pizza Man Restaurant Ltd. and Barski (1983), 47 A.R. 34 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 19].

Reid (Don) Upholstery Ltd. v. Patrie (1995), 173 A.R. 233 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 20].

Alpine Bulk Transport Co. v. Saudi Eagle Shipping Co.; Ship Saudi Eagle, Re, [1986] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 221 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 21].

Winwest Drywall & Building Supply Ltd. v. Bruneau (1986), 74 A.R. 358 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 22].

Atchison et al. v. Boyd et al. (1985), 61 A.R. 189 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 69, footnote 23].

Van Horn v. Coal Valley Systems Ltd. (1987), 78 A.R. 203 (Q.B. Master), refd to. [para. 70, footnote 24].

Petkovich v. Potkonjak, [1945] 3 W.W.R. 476 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 25].

Whitehead v. Bock et al., [1990] A.J. No. 519 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 73, footnote 26].

De Rzonca v. Kummerfield (1956), 64 Man.R. 215; 19 W.W.R.(N.S.) 577; 5 D.L.R.(2d) 34 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73, footnote 27].

GFK Capital Base Corp. v. Fernando, [1994] 1 W.W.R. 735; 88 Man.R.(2d) 125; 51 W.A.C. 125 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73, footnotes 28, 30].

Canadian Union College v. Bonamy et al. (1995), 179 A.R. 122 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 74, footnote 29].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 158 [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Stevenson, William A., and Côté, Jean E., Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook (2002), p. 115 [para. 43, footnote 5].

Counsel:

Coralie J. Schultz (Spitz & Carr), for the plaintiff/respondent;

K. Colleen Verville and B. Wright, for the defendant/applicant, Luisa da Silva.

This application was heard on April 3, 2002, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on April 8, 2002.