Fera v. Arista Homes Limited, et al
VITTORIA FERA
Law Firm / Organization
Workly Law
ARISTA HOMES LIMITED
Law Firm / Organization
Minster Law
Lawyer(s)

Dan Rosman

ARISTA HOMES (WOODBRIDGE) INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Minster Law
Lawyer(s)

Dan Rosman

ARISTA HOMES (WOODBRIDGE) INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Minster Law
Lawyer(s)

Dan Rosman

ARISTA (WOODBRIDGE I) INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Minster Law
Lawyer(s)

Dan Rosman

ARISTA (WOODBRIDGE II) INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Minster Law
Lawyer(s)

Dan Rosman

ARISTA (WOODBRIDGE III) INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Minster Law
Lawyer(s)

Dan Rosman

JOSE RAMOS
Law Firm / Organization
Minster Law
Lawyer(s)

Dan Rosman

Case Overview:

  • Motion: Brought by Jose Ramos to set aside a default judgment from September 21, 2021.

Key Background Facts:

  • Fera alleged sexual harassment and wrongful dismissal after her employment with Arista Homes ended in 2012.
  • Parallel proceedings included:
    • A Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) claim (later barred due to the civil suit).
    • Criminal charges against Ramos, which were withdrawn.
  • Ramos failed to update his address for service during the litigation, leading to missed notices.

Legal Analysis:

  • Default Judgment Test (Mountain View Farms Ltd. v. McQueen):

    1. Prompt Action: Ramos moved quickly after learning of the judgment.
    2. Plausible Excuse: Ramos argued lack of notice due to address issues. While some fault was attributed to Ramos, the court noted the plaintiff’s failure to confirm service.
    3. Arguable Defense: Ramos denied allegations and demonstrated intent to defend in prior related proceedings.
  • Potential Prejudice:

    • Ramos faced significant financial and reputational harm.
    • Plaintiff's prejudice (e.g., undergoing trial) deemed outweighed by the need for a fair trial on merits.

Court's Decision:

  • Ramos’ motion to set aside the default judgment was granted, including:
    • Revocation of the default judgment and reinstatement of his Statement of Defense.
    • Revival of the lawsuit for determination on the merits.
    • Establishment of a timetable for litigation.
    • Cost adjustments based on future agreements or court determinations.
  • The exact total monetary figures for costs were not explicitly determined yet but will depend on further agreements or court rulings.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-13-00116820
Labour & Employment Law
Respondent