The Court refused to set aside a default judgment entered against guarantors and mortgagors in a mortgage recovery proceeding, finding the defendants failed to establish a prima facie defence on any of their three proposed grounds: sale at undervalue, refusal to remove caveats, and refusal to postpone sale pending refinance. Critical to the outcome was the defendants' failure to adduce evidence of the actual sale process, sale prices achieved, or factual particulars supporting their allegations, as distinct from bare assertions. The Court also found the eight-month delay in bringing the application and the inadequate explanation for the original default weighed against setting aside the judgment.
The full text is available to signed-in members.