The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring it to answer certain undertakings and refusals arising from cross-examinations on affidavits filed in support of a motion for partial summary judgment.
The questions concerned matters including production and packaging arrangements, trademark ownership and assignments, damages evidence, product pricing, and complaints to federal authorities relating to alleged grey market goods.
The plaintiff argued the questions were irrelevant, exceeded the proper scope of cross-examination on affidavits, and were disproportionate.
The court held that the questions were relevant to issues raised by the defendants’ restraint of trade and trademark defences and that proportionality determinations by the Master were entitled to deference.
The Master did not err in concluding that the plaintiff bore an initial obligation to explain if requested information was not readily available or would be unduly onerous to obtain.
