American Environmental Container Corp. v. Kennedy
AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAINER CORP.
SAN JUAN PRODUCTS, INC.
KIJO LEASING ULC.
PAUL KENNEDY
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
LEANNE KENNEDY
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
DARREN GREEN
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
SAN JUAN PRODUCTS (CANADA) LTD.
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
SJP ENTERPRISES (CANADA) LTD.
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
SJP ENTERPRISES INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
AECC/SAN JUAN
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
OASIS FIBERGLASS POOLS INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
BACKYARD OASIS
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
2001530 ONTARIO INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
O/A SOUTHERN COMFORT
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP
SAN JUAN ENTERPRISES (CANADA) INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Miller Thomson LLP

Background:

  • The plaintiffs manufacture swimming pools; the defendants were their Canadian distributors.
  • The litigation focused on an accounting dispute. The defendants repeatedly failed to comply with court orders for financial disclosure.

Key Points:

  1. Non-compliance with Court Orders:

    • Justices Strathy and Frank ordered financial disclosures, which the defendants failed to produce, leading to their defense being struck.
    • Defendants' claims of stolen records were dismissed as fabrications.
  2. Motion to Set Aside Judgment:

    • The Kennedys sought to overturn the 2013 default judgment, alleging misrepresentation by their representative, Trent Bridger.
    • They claimed Bridger’s actions undermined their defense, but the court found no grounds for this claim.
  3. Court's Decision:

    • Justice Morgan emphasized the defendants' continuous non-compliance and deceptive behavior.
    • The motion was dismissed, affirming that the original judgment and damages were based on the best available information despite the defendants' lack of disclosure.

Conclusion:

  • The motion to set aside the judgment was dismissed.
  • Written submissions on costs were requested from both parties. No amount specified.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
08-CV-352127PD3
Corporate & commercial law
Plaintiff