On October 31, 2024, the Appellant appealed an Order setting aside a damages assessment order and a default order against our client. The chambers judge set aside the damages assessment order after finding that it would be “shocking and unconscionable” to allow such an order to stand. The appellant argued that the chambers judge erred in law and applied the wrong legal test to this decision, erred in law when he declined to order cross-examinations which the appellant sought only during the set-aside hearing, and made a factual error in improperly weighing evidence.
The division dismissed the appeal and upheld the chambers judge’s decision that the appellant’s case made out no claim against our client.
Cassels acted for respondents.