Rewarding a judgement to creditors is always a result of debtors making no-shows to trials. Before the actual trial there is a settlement mediation among the three parties. Creditors and debtors have a chance to present their cases and the judge will evaluate your financial status to make a fair settlement. The settlement is always extremely leninent to debtors as I often see terms like an extremely low monthly payment with no interest incurred during the repayment period.

When creditors sue, either they hope you do not show up to the trial or they know you have a decent amount of asset. If you are going through a financial hardship and show up to the trial, they will be very disappointed of the amount they will get back.

Ok read and understood, but would the judge reduce a judgement based on ability to pay? and what would you possibly use as a defence if you do owe the money?

Is there any mandatory pre-trial conference to try and reach a settlement before it gets to court?

The value of the judgment is that it extends the amount of time a lender has to collect. Most provinces have ridiculously short limitation periods after which it becomes impossible for the lender to do much to get you to pay. Once they have a judgement that is no longer the case.

If a judgment is awarded the judge can impose a min of 5% annual interest rate on the debt. Once the creditor has the judgment they could use it to garnish money from your bank account, garnish your paycheque or apply it to any assets you own. If you have none of the above then the judgment is useless.

If I wasn't so far in debt I could really enjoy being on this board and learning so much.
I read that you should always reply to a claim when served with a defence.
What could be a defence if you owe the money?

If it did get in front of a judge and he awards the bank judgement what then? can the judge set payment terms to settle the debt if he see's fit?
Or just a judgement for the amount and then the bank has to try and collect?
Any info would be appreciated