Mr. Aurelien Balondona sought to set aside a summary judgment awarded against him and Novhaus Inc. on September 6, 2023, citing his inability to attend due to being in a remote part of Africa with limited technology and alleging misrepresentation regarding the hearing date consent.
Background:
Plaintiffs paid Novhaus Inc. $270,000 for a sea can home but received nothing in return.
Court found Novhaus Inc. converted the funds and held Mr. Balondona personally liable for fraudulent actions under the Consumer Protection Act and Alberta case law.
Arguments:
Defendant’s Argument:
Claimed non-attendance due to remote location and lack of consent for the September 6 hearing.
Plaintiff’s Argument:
Asserted that Mr. Balondona had notice and chose not to attend or arrange representation.
Ruling:
The Court found Mr. Balondona’s absence was due to his own inaction, not an “interfering event” or “mistake” under Rule 9.15.
Misinterpretation of Mr. Balondona's communication did not qualify as a mistake preventing attendance.
Application to set aside the summary judgment was dismissed.
Costs:
Counsel may address costs within 30 days via written submissions not exceeding two pages, supported by a draft Bill of Costs. No amount specified.
