A-C. Norwood

This decision addresses costs following a complex summary judgment regarding the sale of counterfeit headphones.

Computron Systems International Inc. (Computron) and Husain Ladhani et al. (Ladhani) both achieved partial success in their respective summary judgment motions against Techlogics Canada Inc. and Faisal Rashid (Techlogics), while Techlogics was largely unsuccessful.

The court considered factors under Rule 57.01(1) and Rule 49.10 (offers to settle), declining to impose Rule 49.10 sanctions due to the conditional nature of the offers involving multiple parties.

The court also addressed the applicability of the Rule 76 simplified procedure and the conduct of the parties.

Ultimately, Computron was awarded $18,000 in costs, apportioned equally between Ladhani and Techlogics.

Ladhani was awarded $16,000 in costs from Techlogics.

The plaintiff, Computron, purchased wholesale quantities of Beats headphones from the defendant Ladhani, who had sourced them from the defendant Techlogics.

Computron later ordered more headphones directly from Techlogics.

Upon discovering the headphones were counterfeit, Computron sought refunds.

Computron and Ladhani brought motions for summary judgment against Techlogics, arguing they were duped into believing the goods were authentic.

The court found the sales were 'sales by description' under the Sale of Goods Act, implying a condition of authenticity.

The court rejected Techlogics' defence that the buyers knew the goods were inauthentic 'OEM' products.

Summary judgment was granted to Computron against Ladhani and Techlogics, and to Ladhani against Techlogics for breach of contract.