I agree, especially with your third point.And all I have said is what I know the minimum standards to be to keep things as simple and inexpensive for the chap, should he go the SCC route, as possible.
And if you have an AOS, and the defendant moves to invalidate it, the defendant has three problems:
1) the burden is on them to prove the service was not effected;
2) it's pretty hard to argue you are not aware of the lawsuit when you are bringing a motion; and
3) a SCC judge is likely to say...well shit...we're all here now...let's get on with it.
Anyways, I wish you all the best in your claim. At least you will get to spend some entertaining time in SCC which my friends who volunteer as judges there tell me is a lot like the wild west...
No I don't agree with you. You said it was a requirement that you serve the directors (pural) of a corporation. It is not anywhere close to a requirement. And yes, I am sure that the court will correct a misnomer as there is a rule that provides for exactly that.So you do agree with me - the regulation says serving the director is appropriate. I notice the regulation says "appears to be in control or management of the place of business". If you read what I responded to, the poster said it was sufficient to leave it with the SECRETARY or RECEPTIONIST. To the best of my knowledge, those are not people in control of the business.]
Good for you. Perhaps you may want to provide a few details for the benefit of the OP?The Ministry of Labour came through for me and made the bastards pay up. Took a year though.
Small claims court will take at least as long and be more expensive and annoying. Like I said it will take about a year, but to use it to threaten them...The Ministry of Labour came through for me and made the bastards pay up. Took a year though.