of judgment at this point the underlying default judgment can you challenge that at this point yes i believe that properly can challenge that at any point in time when dot com and action never parties you're going to say they were there all along and suddenly they were supposed to figure out that they should have filed a notice of appeal to a judgment that they weren't even party to think they were even bound by i don't even think they would have had standing to make that notice for a default which i'm not a party i don't think that's what the law requires and i don't think that's appropriate and let's think about this this if the person really is the culpable party the law does not require an we don't make that admission here that would be technically what you'd be required to do i do this kind of gotcha too late you've joined after the one year therefore you should have had a crystal ball to figure out you would have been joined earlier and therefore everything's on timing but that only goes to the issue of the validity of this default judgment and i believe that was standing we have the right to attack the within fifteen days or so of being joined in the default judgment and we attacked it on for this and thirteenth amendment grounds of due process amongst other grounds and if you are going to construe our position as untimely as to setting aside the default we still have a very two very viable and valid arguments about why we should have never been joined in the first place that  itself was a violation of due process and that itself did not meet the requisite alter ego success of corporation under applicable case law so you still don't get there now having said that i want to be angry yes i think this was absolutely a travesty of justice when two people when an enemy an individual who is becomes you know this corporation is contract contract occluded any award of consequential damages there were no warranties of merchantability warrant he's the product so i believe on its face the court just ignored the contract precludes any award of consequential them just above the eighty seven thousand dollars so here you have mr summers he becomes ill he can't the corporation can't afford to defend the face of the complaint says eighty seven thousand dollars he borrows money from from steam to continue to fund the corporation he can't handle it any longer and he makes a decision i cannot defend this i'm going to let it go and he le participate in those proceedings and just lets them go and the assets are sold in accordance with canadian law now to suggest that mr summers is properly joined und similarly the president treasurer and operating officer of dot com notwithstanding they were separately formed separate stock issued there was no evidence of co mingling of any of the assets of any of the companies and what's more important went and went the patent route which was completely legal and completely appropriate ok read that the complaint under fifty foresee damages of eighty seven thousand dollars there is no way you get from eighty seven thousand to one point six million dollars under the terms of this contract unless you ignore the terms of the contract and the cases which are guided us on this issue and i believe that they'll have a case in the font case and the california state that reverses s t c construction case also court the right th this mcclellan case which is a six year liability case it doesn't even go to the issue of the alter ego themes and the energy electronics case and so on point and what did it say realities the interview was nate not named as a party had no risk of personal liability and therefore was not required to intervene because the interests of the corporation and the individual are different we cannot say that the individual had occasion to conduct a really gauging with the diligence corresponding to the risk of personal liability that was involved your honour's if mr summers looking at a case with eighty seven thousand dollars makes a decision to walk away one thing two of every judgment for eighty seven thousand dollars on the face of the complaint but to then ignore the terms of the contract about corporate records adequate capitalization dive it was formed in ninety three he does all the right things and without any finding by the trial court of any of the prerequisites to support personal liability on mr summers mr savva the violation of the thirteenth amendment that night and on top of that no different argument really exists as to dot com run was designed to handle liquidations and sales through the inner not net and options on the internet dot com when the dot com era that's what this rise and the other business was completely evidence that the court looked at it to determine whether or not the companies were one and the same the court certainly could look at that out i don't dispute that but i just don't believe if you look at the multiple standards of review you're honest and i'd have to because i have different state of review for the different levels for the different types of relief we're seeking and i don't have  were they were conducted in accordance with the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy of canadian and of canada and minister and monitored by the liquidation dissolution division proper papers were filed the court acknowledged it was done correctly described versus court supervised so i don't want to get mislead the court i think i believe some of the cases just deal with foreign bankruptcy proceedings they don't necessarily distinguish sometimes and in other cases accompli grossing for two million dollars and where did this four come from so i believe that mr sum i have personal knowledge of the amount that can't see it was climbing i would agree with the court that  lawyer in my pocket i'm going to just switch waltzes in midstream and now make the argument well i left that one by the wayside and i'm not i can't be responsible for its obligations because this new company was and the third test which is where the corporation where the company has perpetrated a fraud or accomplished some other wrong for an equitable purpose the court may disregard the corporate later i think that part of the fraud was setting up the transaction to walk through the liquidation so that the new company could continue selling work on the internet or not would but woodworking might be some taxing authority suppliers vendors if the business is in such trouble that it has to go through the process of reorganization liquidations i could move over into a new company surely it would tell other business he can't even get the reason straight why he decided to stock the fanning it was either because he was ill or because he had a downturn in business and couldn't afford to defend the case or there was a receiver appointed and i think that when the dates saw hooked up to all of those facts you can see that peterson was orchestrating a forward that we have been fortunate enough to uncover and he should be held responsible for his actions because he can't leave a machine is four plus years old it's been sitting outside in a junkyard for most of that time and can still would not have the ability to provide an expert to show that the machine didn't work because  alter ego is a crime you got to meet the prom before you go to the next prom so you got to have unity of ownership and interest so that the separate personalities exist and then you need one inevitable result the elite procket they forgot about the unity of interest issue at what occurred in canada everything was done correctly are all of the proper filings roommate was done by the book and that will because they made a motion to join the threshold the unity of ownership interest test with adequate evidence before you can go to the tests which follow with result to the inequities or prejudice part of the argument you thang then you look at whether or not the argument that made it to the court for decision and that's based on calendar for argument is for the person i t t hartford insurance group