Background:

• The case involves mortgage enforcement proceedings.
• The respondent, Robert Stockey, obtained a default judgment and an order for possession of Byrd's property on April 24, 2023.
• Byrd's former counsel consented to this judgment, which Byrd later contested, claiming he was unaware of the judgment until July 2023.

Procedural History:

1. Byrd filed a motion under Rule 37.14 to set aside the judgment, alleging his counsel acted without instructions.
2. The motion was dismissed by Justice MacFarlane on September 12, 2023, due to insufficient and contradictory evidence from Byrd.
3. Byrd appealed this decision and sought a stay of the enforcement pending the appeal, which was denied on October 3, 2023.
4. Byrd then sought a review of the denial of the stay under Section 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Court of Appeal Decision:

• The Court of Appeal dismissed both the review motion and the appeal.
• Reasons included that Rule 37.14 was not applicable as Byrd was represented at the original hearing.
• The court found no basis for reopening the mortgage enforcement proceedings.
• The court noted Byrd had been in default since November 2022 and had failed to refinance or sell the property despite being given additional time.

Outcome:

• Motion and appeal dismissed.
• Costs of $3,000 awarded to the respondent, Robert Stockey.