Setting Aside a Default Judgment

Strategic Representation in Motions to Set Aside Default Judgments in Ontario

PREMIUM LEGAL SERVICES

Experienced. Aggressive. Client-Centered

Get Started

Successful Litigation Cases Handled

0 +

Litigation, Mediation, Trial - Focused

0 %

Years of Combined Legal Experience

0 +

In Handling Complicated Disputes

0 *

Why You Need Legal Help with Setting Aside a Default Judgment

A default judgment can place a defendant in an immediate and serious civil litigation position. Once judgment has been entered, the issue is no longer simply whether a defence was delivered late. A defendant will ordinarily need to seek relief from the court under Rule 19.08, while the plaintiff may seek to preserve a judgment already obtained.

Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure distinguish between a defendant who has merely been noted in default and one against whom default judgment has been entered. Rule 19.03 permits the court to set aside a noting of default on terms that are just. Rule 19.08 separately governs the setting aside or variation of a default judgment and permits the court, where appropriate, also to set aside the underlying noting of default.

That distinction matters strategically. Once judgment exists, enforcement may follow, creating additional urgency around collection, garnishment, execution, or other judgment-enforcement steps.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has identified five principal considerations when deciding whether a default judgment should be set aside:

-whether the motion was brought promptly after the defendant learned of the judgment;

-whether there is a plausible explanation for the default;

-whether the proposed defence has an air of reality;

-prejudice to each side; and

-the effect of the proposed order on the administration of justice.

These factors are not rigid prerequisites and do not necessarily receive equal weight. The overriding question is whether the interests of justice favour setting aside the judgment in the circumstances of the case.

For defendants, prompt action matters. Counsel should reconstruct the procedural history, explain the default through evidence, assess when the defendant learned of the judgment, and develop a proposed defence with sufficient substance to justify reopening the litigation.

An arguable defence does not need to be proven at the set-aside stage. The question is whether it has an air of reality. A motion to set aside default judgment should not become a premature trial of the underlying action.

For plaintiffs, the analysis is different. A motion to set aside can reopen litigation that appeared concluded and may affect enforcement, recovery strategy, costs, and evidentiary preservation. The plaintiff may challenge the explanation for default, the promptness of the motion, the substance of the proposed defence, or prejudice caused by reopening the proceeding.

The procedural route also matters. A judgment may have been signed by the registrar or granted under Rule 19.04, obtained on a motion under Rule 19.05, or obtained after trial. Rule 19.08 addresses the available relief depending on how the judgment was obtained.

Effective representation therefore requires analysis of the complete record:

service → default → judgment → knowledge of judgment → promptness → explanation → proposed defence → prejudice → interests of justice

Years of
combined
legal
experience

ME Law - Civil Litigation Law Firm

WHO WE ARE

ME Law is a litigation-only firm representing businesses, shareholders, executives, professionals, investors, financial institutions, and other sophisticated parties in Ontario civil and commercial disputes involving default proceedings and motions to set aside default judgments.

We act for defendants seeking to reopen litigation after default judgment has been entered and for plaintiffs opposing attempts to disturb judgments already obtained.

For defendants, we assess how and when the claim was served, why no defence was delivered, when the defendant became aware of the proceeding or judgment, and whether the motion was brought promptly. We then evaluate whether the proposed defence has an air of reality and what evidence is required to support reopening the proceeding.

For plaintiffs, we examine whether the explanation for default is credible, whether delay has been justified, whether the proposed defence has sufficient substance, and whether reopening the litigation would create prejudice.

We also distinguish between a noting of default and an actual default judgment. The procedural position matters because the Rules impose different consequences and available remedies depending on the stage the proceeding has reached.

Notice issues also require precision. A defendant who has been noted in default is generally not entitled to notice of subsequent steps except where the Rules, a court order, or another applicable requirement provides otherwise. The analysis must therefore focus on the actual service history, actual notice, procedural compliance, and any irregularity capable of affecting the motion.

Where judgment enforcement has begun, strategy may need to address garnishment, execution, examinations, or other collection steps alongside the set-aside motion.

These disputes are highly fact-specific. A strong record usually requires a disciplined chronology, a credible explanation, an arguable defence, and a clear analysis of prejudice and the interests of justice.

Our focus is clear: identify the procedural position, build the evidentiary record, assess the proposed defence, and present a principled basis for preserving—or setting aside—the judgment.

Click to watch video

How We Help

Civil Litigation Services

Civil Litigation Lawyers

Civil litigation is the formal legal process used to resolve disputes between individuals, businesses, or other entities.

Costs Awards & Cost Recovery

A costs award can materially affect the economic result of Ontario civil litigation. Courts have broad discretion over entitlement, scale, and amount, while Rule 49 offers can create significant costs consequences. ME Law represents parties seeking to recover legal costs and parties resisting substantial or disproportionate costs claims.

Defending a Civil Claim

If you have been served with a statement of claim in Ontario, early decisions can affect jurisdiction, defence deadlines, evidence, counterclaims, settlement leverage, costs exposure, and the overall litigation strategy. ME Law represents businesses and sophisticated parties defending complex civil and commercial claims in Ontario.

Discovery & Documentary Production

Discovery can determine what evidence is available, what admissions can be obtained, which issues remain genuinely disputed, and whether an Ontario civil case should proceed to motion, settlement, or trial. ME Law represents businesses and sophisticated parties in documentary discovery, examinations for discovery, production disputes, undertakings, refusals, and related evidentiary strategy.

Limitation Periods & Time-Barred Claims

Ontario’s Limitations Act, 2002 generally imposes a two-year basic limitation period running from discovery of a claim. Determining when a claim was legally discovered, however, can require careful analysis of what the claimant knew or reasonably ought to have known and when a proceeding became an appropriate means to seek a remedy. For many claims, Ontario law also imposes a 15-year ultimate limitation period, subject to statutory exceptions, exclusions, and special rules that can materially affect whether litigation remains available.

Summary Judgment Motions

Summary judgment can resolve all or part of an Ontario civil proceeding without a conventional trial where there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. Rule 20 gives judges enhanced fact-finding powers, including the ability to weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, and draw reasonable inferences where their use is consistent with the interests of justice. Whether summary judgment is appropriate depends on the issues, evidentiary record, proportionality, and whether the dispute can be fairly and justly determined without trial.

Why Choose Us

Premium Litigation Services:

Quality over quantity for selected clients in complex litigation matters

Selective Focus

We act for a select group of clients in high-stakes litigation, dedicating focused time and strategic attention to each matter to ensure precise, results-driven advocacy.

Limited Caseload

By limiting our caseload, we provide bespoke, high-level representation, where no detail is overlooked and every legal step is carefully considered. Quality over quantity is embedded in our ethos.

Strategic Execution

Our limited-file approach enables us to deliver thorough, strategic legal work on every matter. We don’t offer surface-level service – we provide clarity, focus, and substance.

Beyond Expectations

Our lawyers invest considerable time in legal analysis, research, and continuous training. This ongoing development allows us to stay ahead and deliver outcomes that often exceed clients’ expectations.

Clients’ Success Stories

Our cases

Strategic Commercial Arbitration & Dispute Resolution

Securing a $50M+ Mareva Injunction for a Silicon Valley Startup

Strategic Resolution of $5M+ Shareholder Disputes Across Litigation and Arbitration

Strategic Resolution of $20M Corporate Dispute and $8M+ Estate Succession Matter

Strategic Litigation Leadership in a $15M+ Corporate and Family Dispute

Securing a $2M+ Property Interest After an 8-Day Civil Trial

How We Work

What To Expect

Clear and Strategic Guidance

Transparent and well-informed advice is provided to help navigate your options and achieve the best possible outcome.

Proactive Client Engagement

Clients can expect consistent communication and dedicated attention to ensure their needs are fully understood and addressed.

Meticulous Attention to Details

Every detail is carefully considered, and strategic oversight is provided to guide clients toward a favorable resolution.

Experienced. Effective. Results-Oriented.

A motion to set aside a default judgment should be approached as a coordinated litigation strategy, not as a request for procedural forgiveness.

At ME Law, our analysis follows a disciplined sequence:

Procedural Status → Knowledge of Judgment → Promptness → Explanation for Default → Arguable Defence → Prejudice → Enforcement Position → Administration of Justice

We begin by establishing exactly what has occurred procedurally. A defendant who has merely been noted in default is in a different position from one against whom judgment has already been entered.

Promptness is assessed in light of when the defendant learned of the default judgment. We examine when the claim was served, when default occurred, when judgment was entered, when the defendant became aware of it, and what steps followed.

The explanation for default must then be supported by evidence. Administrative failure, misunderstanding, internal communication problems, reliance on others, changes in management, or service-related issues may become relevant, but the explanation must be credible within the complete record.

The proposed defence is assessed for an air of reality. The defendant does not need to prove the underlying case, and the set-aside motion should not become a mini-trial. At the same time, the existence of an arguable defence does not automatically entitle the defendant to relief.

The court weighs the proposed defence together with promptness, explanation, prejudice, and the effect of the order on the administration of justice. The relative importance of those factors depends on the circumstances.

We then assess prejudice on both sides. Leaving the judgment intact may prevent a potentially viable defence from being adjudicated. Reopening the case may create delay, additional cost, evidentiary difficulty, or disruption to enforcement.

Where enforcement has commenced, the strategy must also account for the immediate consequences of the judgment and any relief required while the motion is pending.

For defendants, the objective is to present a credible evidentiary basis for reopening the case.

For plaintiffs, the objective is to demonstrate why the judgment should remain undisturbed or why any relief should be granted only on appropriate terms.

Our approach is designed to answer the central question: does the complete record justify reopening the litigation in the interests of justice?

SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT LAWYERS YOU CAN RELY ON

ME Law represents defendants seeking to set aside default judgments and plaintiffs responding to motions that would reopen litigation after judgment has already been obtained.

For defendants, early action is critical. We assess the service history, noting of default, entry of judgment, knowledge of the judgment, subsequent delay, and the evidentiary explanation for what occurred.

We then assess whether the proposed defence has an air of reality and whether the complete record supports discretionary relief in the interests of justice.

Where enforcement has begun, the mandate may also require urgent attention to garnishment, execution, examinations, or other collection measures.

For plaintiffs, the objective is often to preserve the judgment and resist reopening the litigation without a sufficient evidentiary basis. We assess promptness, credibility of the explanation, substance of the proposed defence, prejudice, and the broader administration-of-justice considerations.

Rule 19.08 permits the court to set aside or vary a default judgment on terms that are just. Those terms may therefore become part of the litigation strategy rather than a secondary procedural issue.

The strongest approach addresses the entire litigation position:

procedural history → promptness → explanation → defence on the merits → prejudice → enforcement consequences → interests of justice

Our Commitment

Our objective is to place the court in a position to decide the set-aside motion on a complete, disciplined, and persuasive evidentiary record.

We combine procedural analysis, motion strategy, evidence development, and broader litigation planning for clients on both sides of default judgment disputes.

If a default judgment has been entered—or another party is seeking to have an existing judgment set aside—Contact ME Law to assess the available litigation strategy.

Motions to Set Aside Default Judgments

Motions to Set Aside a Noting of Default

Defending Motions to Set Aside Default Judgments

Urgent Motions Following Default Judgment

Service, Actual Notice and Default-Procedure Disputes

Defence-on-the-Merits and Evidentiary Motion Strategy

Delay, Promptness and Explanation for Default

Prejudice and Interests-of-Justice Submissions

Urgent Relief Concerning Judgment Enforcement

Garnishment, Writs and Post-Judgment Enforcement Response

Terms, Costs and Conditions on Set-Aside Orders

Litigation Strategy After a Default Judgment Is Set Aside or Preserved

Clear Guidance. Strong Advocacy.

What we do:

Let us solve your legal issue

Years
Experience

0 +

Successful
Cases

0 +

Main Areas of
Specialization

0 +

Dedication to
Your Case

0 +

Reach out to us today

Frequently Asked Questions

Becoming a Client

View all faqs

How do I become a client of ME Law?

Becoming a client of ME Law begins with a complimentary intake call and proceeds through a conflict check, a formal consultation with a lawyer, and, if you decide to retain the firm and ME Law agrees to act, a written Retainer Agreement. Once the agreement is executed and the required retainer is received, ME Law opens the file and begins the agreed legal work.

The first step is the initial intake call. This is a preliminary conversation with an intake specialist, not the substantive legal consultation itself. The purpose is to understand the general nature of your matter, identify the type of dispute involved, gather preliminary information, and determine whether the matter falls within ME Law’s areas of practice.

At this stage, the firm is screening the matter so that the appropriate next step can be identified. If the matter appears to be one ME Law may be able to assist with, the process moves to a conflict check before detailed legal advice is provided.

If you want to understand why that step is required, see Why is a conflict check necessary before a consultation?.

The conflict check is conducted to determine whether ME Law has a professional conflict that would prevent the firm from acting. The process is governed by the Law Society of Ontario professional obligations and is intended to protect confidentiality, independence, and loyalty. You may be asked to identify the relevant parties so that those names can be checked against the firm’s records.

Once the conflict check is cleared, the next stage is a formal consultation with a lawyer. This is different from the preliminary intake call. The consultation is the substantive meeting in which the lawyer reviews your situation in more detail, answers questions, discusses preliminary legal options and strategy, and explains what the next steps may look like.

For a fuller explanation of the meeting itself, see What is a consultation at ME Law?.

The onboarding process can therefore be understood in five stages:

Initial intake call.
ME Law gathers preliminary information, identifies the nature of the matter, and determines whether it falls within the firm’s practice areas.
Conflict check.
The relevant party names are reviewed to determine whether a conflict of interest prevents ME Law from proceeding.
Consultation with a lawyer.
Once cleared, you meet with a lawyer, either in person or remotely, for a more detailed assessment of the matter and the legal options that may be available.
Retainer and engagement.
If you decide to proceed and ME Law agrees to take on the matter, the firm provides a Retainer Agreement setting out the scope of work, estimated costs, and billing structure. The scope is defined according to the work that is actually required rather than assumed to cover every possible step in the dispute.
File opening and legal work.
Once the Retainer Agreement is executed and the required retainer is received, the file is formally opened. The lawyer can then begin the agreed work, which may include developing a case strategy, drafting pleadings, engaging in negotiations, or preparing for court proceedings, depending on the mandate.

Becoming a client is therefore not the same thing as making an inquiry or completing an intake call. It also does not occur merely because a consultation has been booked. The formal engagement stage matters because it defines what ME Law has agreed to do, how the work will be billed, and what the client and firm should expect from the relationship.

The consultation is also where the proposed scope of the engagement can be discussed. Depending on the matter, that may involve advice on a defined issue through a limited-scope retainer or broader ongoing representation through a full-scope retainer. The appropriate structure depends on the record, complexity, procedural stage, and work required.

If your matter is urgent, explain that during the intake process so the firm can assess timing and lawyer availability. See How quickly can you schedule an initial consultation? for how consultation scheduling is handled after intake and conflict clearance.

ME Law’s onboarding process is designed to move from preliminary screening to conflict clearance, substantive legal assessment, and then a clearly defined engagement. The purpose is to ensure that the firm understands the matter, can act without a professional conflict, and has agreed with you on the scope of the work before substantive representation begins.

Contact ME Law to start the intake process and discuss whether your matter is one the firm may be able to assist with.

What are the typical steps from first contact to retaining ME Law?

The process typically moves through five stages: an initial intake call, a conflict check, a consultation with a lawyer, a formal Retainer Agreement, and then file opening and the start of the agreed legal work. Each stage has a different purpose, so contacting ME Law does not automatically mean that the firm has been retained.

1. Initial intake call

The process begins with a complimentary intake call. An intake specialist gathers preliminary information about the dispute, identifies the parties involved, and considers whether the matter falls within ME Law’s areas of practice.

This is an initial screening step rather than the substantive legal consultation. If you want the broader overview of becoming a client, see How do I become a client of ME Law?.

2. Conflict check

If the matter is potentially suitable for the firm, ME Law conducts a conflict check before moving into substantive discussions. Relevant party names are checked against the firm’s records to determine whether professional obligations prevent ME Law from acting.

For more detail on the purpose of this step, see Why is a conflict check necessary before a consultation?.

3. Consultation with a lawyer

Once the conflict check is cleared, a formal consultation can be scheduled. The consultation may take place in person or remotely and is the stage at which the lawyer reviews the matter in greater depth, discusses preliminary legal options and strategy, and considers what further work may be required.

This is distinct from the initial intake call. What is a consultation at ME Law? explains the scope of that substantive meeting in more detail.

4. Retainer and engagement

If you decide to proceed and ME Law agrees to accept the mandate, the firm provides a written Retainer Agreement. It identifies the agreed scope of work, billing structure, and other terms governing the engagement.

Depending on the matter, the engagement may be structured as a limited-scope retainer for defined work or as broader ongoing representation. The lawyer-client engagement begins according to the terms of the executed retainer rather than merely because an inquiry or consultation has taken place.

5. File opening and next steps

After the Retainer Agreement is executed and any required retainer funds are received, ME Law can formally open the file and begin the work within the agreed mandate.

Depending on the dispute, that work may include developing litigation strategy, reviewing evidence, drafting pleadings, engaging in negotiations, or preparing for proceedings before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The purpose of this staged process is to ensure that the matter is screened appropriately, conflicts are addressed, the legal issues are assessed, and both the client and ME Law understand the scope of the engagement before substantive representation begins.

Contact ME Law to begin the intake process.

What information do I need to provide for a conflict check after the initial call?

After the initial intake call, ME Law will ask you to identify the parties involved in your matter so the firm can complete a conflict check before receiving detailed confidential information or moving to a substantive consultation. The purpose at this stage is to establish who is involved, not to conduct a full review of your case.

The conflict check is part of ME Law’s intake and onboarding process. Before a lawyer can proceed with substantive discussions, the firm must determine whether it currently represents, previously represented, or holds confidential information relating to a party whose interests may conflict with yours.

ME Law’s conflict-check obligations arise under the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct and form part of the professional duties governing independence, loyalty, and confidentiality.

If you want a fuller explanation of the legal and ethical reason for this process, see Why is a conflict check necessary before a consultation?.

What should you provide?

At this stage, you should provide the names of the relevant parties involved in the dispute or proposed engagement. The objective is to give ME Law enough identifying information to run the appropriate check against its records.

Depending on the matter, there may be several parties whose involvement needs to be identified before the conflict check can be completed. The important point is to disclose the relevant party names accurately so the firm can determine whether a professional conflict exists.

You generally should not use the conflict-check stage to send a large volume of confidential documents or provide an extensive substantive account of the dispute before ME Law confirms that it is able to proceed. The conflict check comes before the detailed legal assessment.

The typical sequence is:

Initial intake call — ME Law gathers preliminary information about the nature of the matter.
Party identification — you provide the names required for the conflict check.
Conflict review — ME Law checks its records for potential professional conflicts.
Conflict clearance — if no conflict prevents the firm from proceeding, the matter can move to the next stage.
Consultation — detailed documents, facts, legal issues, strategy, and possible next steps can then be addressed through the substantive consultation process.

This distinction is important because completing a conflict-check form does not itself create a retainer or mean that ME Law has agreed to represent you. It is a preliminary professional safeguard within the intake process.

For the broader onboarding sequence, see How do I become a client of ME Law?. Once the conflict process is complete, What is a consultation at ME Law? explains what happens at the substantive legal assessment stage.

Contact ME Law to begin the intake process and provide the party information required for a conflict check.

What happens during the initial intake call with ME Law?

The initial intake call is a complimentary preliminary conversation with an ME Law intake specialist. Its purpose is to understand the general nature of your matter, gather the information needed to assess whether it falls within the firm’s areas of practice, identify the relevant parties, and determine the appropriate next step.

The intake call is different from a substantive consultation with a lawyer. At this stage, ME Law is not conducting a detailed review of your evidence or providing a full legal assessment. Instead, the firm is gathering enough preliminary information to determine whether the matter is one it may be able to assist with and what must happen before a consultation can proceed.

For an overview of the complete onboarding process, see How do I become a client of ME Law?.

During the initial intake process, you may be asked to explain:

the general nature of the dispute;
who the relevant parties are;
whether litigation or another legal proceeding has already started;
whether there are immediate deadlines or urgent circumstances;
what type of assistance you are seeking from ME Law.

Identifying the parties is particularly important because the next step will ordinarily involve a conflict check under the Law Society of Ontario’s professional-conduct requirements. ME Law must determine whether a professional conflict prevents the firm from proceeding before receiving detailed confidential information or moving into substantive legal discussions.

For the practical information required at that stage, see What information do I need to provide for a conflict check after the initial call?.

Once the conflict check is completed and the firm is able to proceed, a formal consultation with a lawyer can be scheduled. That consultation is where the matter can be examined in greater depth, including the factual record, legal issues, preliminary strategy, and possible next steps.

The distinction matters: an intake call, a conflict check, a substantive legal consultation, and a Retainer Agreement are separate stages of the client-onboarding process. Completing the intake call does not by itself mean that ME Law has agreed to act or that a lawyer-client retainer has been established.

If you want to know how quickly the substantive lawyer meeting can be arranged after intake and conflict clearance, see How quickly can you schedule an initial consultation?.

Contact ME Law to begin the intake process.