J. Spotswood

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order approving a draft discovery plan in an action for misrepresentation, breach of contract, and defamation arising from a construction project.

The defendants sought to include deadlines for Scott Schedules and a specific provision regarding documentary discovery for their counterclaim.

The court approved the discovery plan with adjusted deadlines, declined to include a deadline for Scott Schedules as they had already been served, and added a general provision for documentary discovery relating to all pleadings.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the plaintiffs in the cause.

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.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to examine a representative of the Royal Bank of Canada, a non-party, for discovery.

The action involved allegations that the defendant lender made representations regarding financing arrangements for hotel development projects, including construction financing to be provided by the bank.

The court held that the plaintiffs established that the bank likely possessed information relevant to material issues in the action, particularly regarding the financing proposal process and representations made by the defendant.

The court further found that the plaintiffs could not obtain the information from the defendants and that fairness required allowing the examination prior to trial.

Leave was granted to conduct a limited four-hour examination of the bank’s representative.