Default Judgment — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Default Judgment
In Ontario employment litigation, a "default judgment" is a binding court order granted in favour of an employee when their former employer fails to properly respond to a legal claim. When a worker files and formally serves a Statement of Claim for issues like wrongful dismissal, unpaid wages, or human rights violations, the employer is legally obligated to file a Statement of Defence. Under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, an employer located in the province typically has just 20 days to properly file this response. If they ignore this critical deadline, the employee can take administrative steps to "note them in default."
Noting an employer in default has significant consequences. Procedurally, the employer is deemed to admit the truth of all the factual allegations outlined in the employee’s lawsuit. For instance, if a senior executive alleges they were terminated without just cause, the employer's failure to defend is treated by the court as a formal admission of that wrongful dismissal.
However, securing a default judgment does not mean the court automatically hands over a blank cheque for the amount requested in the claim. While the employer’s basic liability is established, the employee must still prove the specific value of their damages. This is typically done through a formal motion—often in writing—supported by sworn affidavits. In a common law severance scenario, a judge will still apply standard legal principles to assess appropriate reasonable notice using the Bardal factors (age, length of service, character of employment, and availability of similar work). Furthermore, the employee usually still bears the burden to show evidence of mitigation (their job search efforts), though specific exceptions apply, such as when enforcing a fixed-term contract.
Default judgments can also arise later in the litigation cycle as a severe penalty for misconduct. If a defending employer intentionally stalls, abruptly cancels examinations for discovery, or ignores court orders, an Ontario judge can "strike" their Statement of Defence. This effectively defaults the employer, fast-tracking the employee's victory.
Because the civil justice system involves rigid procedural rules and evidentiary thresholds—even when the opposing side goes radio silent—it is highly advantageous to have professional counsel. Working with a qualified employment lawyer ensures the default process is executed swiftly and appropriately, positioning you for the often more challenging next step: legally enforcing the judgment to collect your owed funds.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean to note an employer in default?
Noting an employer in default is a procedural step taken when a company fails to file a Statement of Defence within the allowed time frame (usually 20 days in Ontario). Once noted in default, the employer is barred from participating further in the lawsuit and is legally deemed to admit the factual claims you made in your lawsuit.
If my employer doesn't respond to my lawsuit, do I get exactly what I sued for?
Not automatically. While the employer’s liability is admitted by default, you must still present evidence to a judge to prove the exact monetary value of your losses. The judge will independently assess whether your damage calculations for things like severance pay, lost benefits, or unpaid wages are supported by Ontario law.
Can an employer reverse a default judgment?
Yes, but it is not easy. An employer must promptly bring a motion to the court to "set aside" the default. To succeed, they generally must explain why they failed to respond in time, prove they moved quickly to fix the error, and demonstrate they actually have a valid, arguable defence to your employment claim.
How long does a company have to reply to an employment lawsuit in Ontario?
Under the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, an employer physically served with a Statement of Claim within Ontario has 20 days to file a Statement of Defence. If they are served elsewhere in Canada or the USA, they have 40 days, and 60 days if served internationally.
When should I consult an employment lawyer if my former boss is ignoring my severance demands?
You should engage an employment litigator as soon as informal demands are ignored. A lawyer can efficiently launch a formal Statement of Claim, rigorously manage the strict timelines for an employer's response, and swiftly move for a default judgment before the company attempts to hide assets.
What happens if an employer enters a defence but stops participating later?
If an employer repeatedly ignores court orders, fails to produce required documents, or skips mandatory steps like examinations for discovery, your lawyer can bring a motion to strike their pleadings. If the court strikes their defence due to this misconduct, you can proceed to obtain a default judgment.
How do I actually get my severance money if I win by default judgment?
Winning the judgment is distinct from collecting the money. To enforce a default judgment in Ontario, you may need to utilize legal collection tools such as garnishing the employer's bank accounts, issuing a writ to seize corporate property, or pursuing directors personally if specific corporate laws were violated.
Common Scenarios
- A retail business unexpectedly shuts down its operations and terminates all staff without paying minimum Employment Standards Act entitlements. When an employee files a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, the former owners simply ignore the legal documents, allowing the worker's lawyer to secure a default judgment for severance.
- A mid-level manager serves a claim on their former employer alleging constructive dismissal and human rights violations due to severe workplace harassment. The employer's defence gets struck by a judge because their legal team repeatedly failed to attend court-ordered discoveries, resulting in a default judgment encompassing both wrongful dismissal and moral damages.
- A specialized contractor is let go halfway through a two-year fixed-term agreement and files a lawsuit for the remaining year's salary. The company fails to file a Statement of Defence within twenty days, allowing the plaintiff to obtain a fast-tracked judgment for the balance of the contract without any deductions for mitigation.
- A long-tenured employee wins a default judgment against a financially unstable corporation that "went dark" during litigation. To ensure collectability, the employee successful uses the oppression remedy in their default motion to hold the solitary director jointly and severally liable for the outstanding wages and severance.
What You Should Know
- Monitor the clock closely after having a process server deliver your Statement of Claim; if the 20-day window expires without a defence, instruct your legal team to immediately note the employer in default to lock them out of the process.
- Even if you anticipate the employer will not respond, you must continue your diligent search for new work and keep detailed logs, as you generally still have to prove to a judge that you attempted to mitigate your damages during a default motion.
- Before incurring the legal costs of drafting a motion for default judgment, have a professional conduct an updated corporate search to ensure the employer hasn't formally filed for bankruptcy, which fundamentally alters your ability to proceed.
- Never assume an unresponsive employer means a guaranteed payday; consult with an experienced employment lawyer early on to structure your lawsuit in a way that maximizes your ability to actually enforce the judgment against corporate assets or directors.
Featured Cases
M. v. Blue Line Distribution Limited et al.
2026 ONSC 4784 (CanLII) · 2026-08-18Employment Case: Default Judgment & Simplified Procedure
This is a procedural motion in an employment-related action concerning default judgment, simplified procedure jurisdiction, and venue. The court adjourned multiple motions without prejudice due to issues with service on dissolved corporations, the monetary cap for simplified procedure, and the admissibility of hearsay evidence to prove unliquidated damages.
C. v. Grand Cheese
2026 ONSC 4045 (CanLII) · 2026-07-13Wrongful Dismissal: Senior Executive Awarded 27 Months Notice
This is a default judgment ruling in a wrongful dismissal case involving a senior executive with lengthy service who was constructively dismissed without just cause. The court established liability based on deemed admissions and applied the Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc. principle regarding benefits continuity. The plaintiff was awarded twenty-seven months' pay in lieu of reasonable notice with benefits, along with partial indemnity costs and interest.
C. v. H. et al
2026 ONSC 2194 (CanLII) · 2026-04-13Fixed-Term Termination: Unenforceable Clauses & Liability
This case involves a determination on the enforceability of termination clauses in an employment contract and the remedies available for the early termination of a fixed-term agreement. The court found the termination provisions unenforceable due to non-compliance with minimum standards, applying principles from Waksdale v. Swegon North America. Additionally, the court confirmed the employee's entitlement to wages for the balance of the fixed term, citing Howard v. Benson Group Inc., and held individual defendants jointly and severally liable alongside the corporation following a default judgment.
D. v. Interspec Systems Ltd.
2026 ONSC 2112 (CanLII) · 2026-04-09Wrongful Dismissal: Age Discrimination & Default Judgment
This is a merits decision granting default judgment in a wrongful dismissal case involving an employee terminated via relocation over 100 km without notice. The court found wrongful dismissal established, applying Bardal factors and mitigation principles to calculate damages for unpaid wages, vacation, benefits, and statutory pay under the ESA. Additionally, human rights damages were awarded for age discrimination targeting an older workforce, and joint and several liability was imposed on related corporations and the president under the oppression remedy.
F. v. Yorkwest Plumbing Supply Inc.
2025 ONSC 5866 (CanLII) · 2025-10-17Wrongful Dismissal: Default Judgment Reinstated for Misconduct
This is a procedural ruling in a wrongful dismissal action where the court reinstated a default judgment against the employer. The defendant's Statement of Defence had been struck due to significant delays and misconduct, including failure to respond to communications and cancelling discoveries. The court denied the defendant's request to make submissions on the motion for default judgment, finding that allowing such submissions would constitute an abuse of process.
B. v. 6HARMONICS INC.
2025 ONSC 3610 (CanLII) · 2025-06-18Wrongful Dismissal: Default Judgment for 9 Months' Salary
This is a default judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal case where the defendant failed to respond to the action. The court found the defendant liable for breach of the employment agreement, specifically for failing to pay nine months' salary as stipulated in the contract. Applying the principle from Bowes v. Goss Power Products Ltd., the court held there was no duty to mitigate damages where the contract fixed liquidated damages, awarding the plaintiff $184,166.69 in damages.
F. v. Arista Homes Limited, et al
2024 ONSC 7152 (CanLII) · 2024-12-23A wrongful dismissal case involving procedural issues regarding default judgments and the application to set aside such judgments.
542491 Ontario Limited v. 8240631 Canada Inc.
2024 ONSC 2769 (CanLII) · 2024-05-14Wrongful Dismissal: Constructive Dismissal Default Judgment
This is a wrongful dismissal case involving allegations of constructive dismissal. The proceedings resulted in a default judgment.
542491 Ontario Limited v 8240631 Canada Inc.
2023 ONSC 4095 (CanLII) · 2023-07-10Constructive Dismissal: Default Judgment Motion
This is a motion for default judgment in a case concerning constructive dismissal. The case involves a dispute between 542491 Ontario Limited and 8240631 Canada Inc. regarding the termination of employment through constructive dismissal.
T. v. S.
2021 ONSC 7780 (CanLII) · 2021-11-25T. v. S.: Consolidation of Wrongful Dismissal Actions
This is a procedural ruling concerning the consolidation and transfer of four actions arising from a plaintiff's termination from employment, conspiracy, defamation, and loan disputes. The court held that consolidation avoids a multiplicity of proceedings and reduces costs, rejecting the argument that a default judgment in one action precluded consolidation.
D. v. Vantage Machine Shop Ltd.
2021 ONSC 6876 (CanLII) · 2021-09-27Wrongful Dismissal: 30-Year Employee Awarded 24 Months Notice
This is a merits decision regarding a wrongful dismissal claim where a machine operator with over 30 years of service was terminated at age 60 while on medical leave. The court applied the Bardal factors and awarded 24 months' salary in lieu of reasonable notice, totaling $100,654.93, while noting the plaintiff's inability to mitigate damages due to disability. Claims for benefits and vacation pay were adjourned for further evidence, and the defendant had been noted in default.
C. v. R.
2021 ONSC 5476 (CanLII) · 2021-08-10Constructive Dismissal: Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a motion to set aside a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action brought by the plaintiff against the Crown. The underlying dispute involves allegations of constructive dismissal under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.
S. v. BCG Logistics (2000) Inc.
2021 ONSC 1343 (CanLII) · 2021-02-23This is a wrongful dismissal case involving a default judgment where the court addressed issues of damages and the employee's duty to mitigate losses under the Employment Standards Act.
A. v. Haylor Properties Niagara Inc.
2018 ONCA 483 (CanLII) · 2018-05-24A. v. Haylor Properties Niagara Inc.
This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision refusing to set aside a default judgment. The employee sued for wrongful dismissal in 2011. After years of delays and missed appearances, the employer's defence was struck and a default judgment was granted. The motion judge declined to set aside the default judgment because the employer failed to explain the default and setting it aside would prejudice the justice system. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.
S. v Granite Club
2016 ONSC 4215 (CanLII) · 2016-06-24Setting Aside Default Judgment in Wrongful Dismissal
This is an interlocutory motion regarding the setting aside of a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action. The court evaluated whether the defendant's explanation for failing to file a Statement of Defence—relying on suspended litigation during mediation—was plausible and whether an arguable defence existed. The court found that the defendant raised arguable defences regarding performance-based termination and disability benefits interference, leading to the decision to set aside the default judgment.
B. v IQT, Ltd
2014 ONSC 2180 (CanLII) · 2014-04-07Class Action: Employment Standards Default Judgment
This is a class action proceeding involving statutory employment claims under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The court addressed whether the defendant's default entitled the plaintiffs to judgment for unpaid wages, vacation pay, termination pay, and severance pay, granting default judgment for these statutory claims. Additionally, the court granted certification of the class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, though approval of the Notice and Notice Plan was adjourned.
M. v. United States of America
2014 ONSC 1557 (CanLII) · 2014-03-12Wrongful Dismissal: Setting Aside Default Judgment
This is an interlocutory motion to set aside a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal case involving a plaintiff who received long-term disability benefits. The defendant argued that the State Immunity Act imposed a mandatory 60-day limit for the motion and that the plaintiff's disability disentitled her to damages. The court interpreted the State Immunity Act as permissive regarding time limits, found the defendant's explanation for delay plausible but extraordinary, and determined there was an arguable defence on the merits regarding the notice period and benefit deductions.
S. v. Ellis Entertainment Corp.
2012 ONCA 362 (CanLII) · 2012-05-31S. v. Ellis Ent.: Counterclaim After Defence Struck
This was an appeal to the Court of Appeal from an order of a motion judge. The employee sued the corporation and its director for wrongful dismissal, and the corporation counterclaimed for wrongdoing. After the corporation became insolvent, its counterclaim was assigned to the director, and its statement of defence was later struck out for failing to attend discovery. The motion judge ruled that because the corporation was deemed to admit the wrongful dismissal when its defence was struck, the director could not amend his pleadings to pursue the counterclaim, which was based on the same allegations as the struck defence. The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the director's appeal.
W. v. Infodisc Technology Canada
2004 CanLII 43057 (ON SC) · 2004-10-26Wrongful Dismissal Default Judgment Upheld
A wrongful dismissal case where a default judgment was awarded to the plaintiff. The defendants sought to set aside the default judgment but failed to provide an adequate explanation or a meritorious defence. The court upheld the default judgment, finding the defendants' default was not unintentional.