As to the first point, in Strange v. Saskatchewan, the applicant had offered his failure to read or understand the seriousness of the legal documents which set out the claim against him by way of explanation for his failure to respond to them. Popescul J. found that this conduct amounted to “wilful blindness” and could not, for that reason, satisfy the requirement to provide a “satisfactory explanation”. In such circumstances, Popescul J. concluded the application for relief must fail. In the appellants’ case, the chambers judge was of the view the situation before him was indistinguishable from Strange v. Saskatchewan and fell within that principle.
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.