Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00661041

DATE: 20211129

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: MONICA GRANT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated Applicant

AND:

INFOLINK TECHNOLOGIES CORP. o/a VOICELOGIC Respondent

APPLICATION UNDER the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c- E.23, s.60 and the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, s.46, and the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rules 14.05 and 34.

AND IN THE MATTER OF an action pending in the name of MONIFA GRANT v. REGAL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida, Case #: 8:19-cv-363-SDM-JSS

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Chalmers

COUNSEL: S. Gabrael for the Applicant

A. Wygodny, for the Respondent

M. Nowina, for Regal Automotive Group, Inc.

HEARD: November 29, 2021, by teleconference

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Applicant is the representative Plaintiff in an action brought in the United States (the U.S. Action). Regal is a Defendant in the U.S. Action. The Applicant alleges that on or about October 4, 2019, Regal, through its telemarketing vendor, BDC Promotions Inc., sent unsolicited “ringless” voicemails to the Applicants’ and other individual’s cellular telephone numbers. The “ringless” calling platform was provided by the Respondent, Infolink Technologies Corp. o/a Voicelogic, (Voicelogic). Voicelogic is an Ontario Corporation.

[2] Letters of Request were issued by the Honourable Justice Julie S. Sneed of the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division in the action; Grant v. Regal Automotive Group, Inc. in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, Tampa, Florida, Case # 8:19-cv-363-SDM-JSS to compel Infolink to attend a deposition in Ontario. By endorsement dated July 2, 2021, I ordered the representative of Voicelogic to attend the examination on July 12, 2021. It was a term of my order that the examination will not proceed unless the Applicant delivers the attendance money of $7,500 and a protective order is obtained before the commencement of the examination.

[3] The examination did not take place by July 12, 2021 because of delays in obtaining the protective order in the U.S. Action. On July 22, 2021, the U.S. Court granted the protective order. The protective order is binding upon Regal. Regal filed an objection to the order. By order dated September 17, 2021, the U.S. court modified the protective order, to provide that Regal is to be added as a party to the Application so Regal may be involved in the deposition of Infolink.

[4] Counsel attended the motion today. Voicelogic and Regal do not consent to the order sought. However, they do not oppose. The Applicant seeks to impose an outside date of February 4, 2022 for the deposition of the representative of Infolink to be completed. The Respondent and Regal do not consent to imposing an outside date.

[5] It is my view that Regal is a necessary party to the Application. I grant the order to add Regal as a party to the Application.

[6] There has been some delay in completing the deposition of the Infolink and I am satisfied that it is appropriate to impose an outside date. February 4, 2022 is over 3 months from today. I am satisfied that this allows for sufficient time to complete the deposition of Infolink.

[7] I grant the relief sought by the Applicant. Order to go in accordance with the draft order filed and signed by me.

DATE: November 29, 2021