Hartwick O’shea & Cartwright Ltd. v. DRP Transportation
Source text
Hartwick O’shea & Cartwright Ltd. v. DRP Transportation Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2016-10-04 Neutral citation 2016 FC 1107 File numbers T-405-15 Decision Content Date: 20161004 Docket: T-405-15 Citation: 2016 FC 1107 Ottawa, Ontario, October 4, 2016 PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Mireille Tabib BETWEEN: HARTWICK O’SHEA & CARTWRIGHT LTD. Plaintiff and DRP TRANSPORTATION Defendant JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] UPON reading the Notice of Motion and Motion Record of the Plaintiff and moving party, Hartwick O’Shea and Cartwright, including the affidavit of Stephen Cartwright and Exhibits thereto. [2] AND UPON considering the Memorandum of Fact and Law of the moving party, the Defendant being unrepresented and not appearing on this ex parte motion. [3] CONSIDERING that the Defendant is in default. [4] CONSIDERING that the Plaintiff has established that the Defendant is indebted to it in the amount of $35,012.08. [5] CONSIDERING the Interest Act. [6] CONSIDERING that the Plaintiff has not established that either of its offers to settle remained open for acceptance until now, and that the Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to double costs. [7] CONSIDERING that no costs were awarded in respect of the Defendant’s first motion for leave to be represented by Dale Pickard and that costs of the Defendant’s second motion were fixed in the amount of $1,000.00 only. JUDGMENT THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that: 1. The Defendant’s Statement of Defence and Counterclaim are struck…
Full judgment (source text)
Mirrored from decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca — the linked original is authoritative.
Hartwick O’shea & Cartwright Ltd. v. DRP Transportation Court (s) Database Federal Court Decisions Date 2016-10-04 Neutral citation 2016 FC 1107 File numbers T-405-15 Decision Content Date: 20161004 Docket: T-405-15 Citation: 2016 FC 1107 Ottawa, Ontario, October 4, 2016 PRESENT: Madam Prothonotary Mireille Tabib BETWEEN: HARTWICK O’SHEA & CARTWRIGHT LTD. Plaintiff and DRP TRANSPORTATION Defendant JUDGMENT AND REASONS [1] UPON reading the Notice of Motion and Motion Record of the Plaintiff and moving party, Hartwick O’Shea and Cartwright, including the affidavit of Stephen Cartwright and Exhibits thereto. [2] AND UPON considering the Memorandum of Fact and Law of the moving party, the Defendant being unrepresented and not appearing on this ex parte motion. [3] CONSIDERING that the Defendant is in default. [4] CONSIDERING that the Plaintiff has established that the Defendant is indebted to it in the amount of $35,012.08. [5] CONSIDERING the Interest Act. [6] CONSIDERING that the Plaintiff has not established that either of its offers to settle remained open for acceptance until now, and that the Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to double costs. [7] CONSIDERING that no costs were awarded in respect of the Defendant’s first motion for leave to be represented by Dale Pickard and that costs of the Defendant’s second motion were fixed in the amount of $1,000.00 only. JUDGMENT THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that: 1. The Defendant’s Statement of Defence and Counterclaim are struck. 2. The Defendant is condemned to pay to the Plaintiff the principal amount of $35,012.08 with interest thereon at 5% per annum from October 30, 2014. 3. The Defendant is also condemned to pay to the Plaintiff costs in the fixed amount of $10,000.00. 4. The above judgment and remedies are enforceable against the defendant partnership DRP Transportation as well as its partner and principal directing mind Dale R. Pickard. “Mireille Tabib” Prothonotary FEDERAL COURT SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: T-405-15 STYLE OF CAUSE: HARTWICK O’SHEA & CARTWRIGHT LTD. v DRP TRANSPORTATION MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO, PURSUANT TO RULE 369 OF THE FEDERAL COURTS RULES. JUDGMENT AND REASONS: TABIB P. DATED: October 4, 2016 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: Gavin Magrath For The plaintiff SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Magrath’s International Legal Counsel Toronto, Ontario For The PLAINTIFF Dale R. Pickard Barrie, Ontario For The DEFENDANT (Self-represented)
Source: decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca
Administration des aéroports régionaux d’Edmonton c. Thibodeau
2024 CAF 196