RE/MAX, LLC v. Save Max Real Estate, Inc. et al, 2021 CanLII 53761

Associate Justice Ring - 2021-06-14

Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:

The issues before the Court on this motion are: (a) Should the Defendants be permitted to now object to the validity of questions that Mr. Dua or his counsel gave an undertaking to answer during his examination? (b) Have the Defendants provided sufficient responses to the undertakings in issue? Having reviewed the motion records filed on behalf of the parties and considered the oral submissions of counsel for the parties, and for the reasons that follow, I conclude that the Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part. ... Applying these legal principles to this case, I find that Mr. Dua or his counsel have freely undertaken to provide further answers or documents in response to the questions in issue on this motion, and their undertakings are binding on the Defendants. They have not brought a motion to be relieved of the undertakings in question. ... In summary, the Defendants’ responses to the above-noted undertakings are deficient because the Defendants failed to request certain information and/or documents from the franchises and realtors that they are entitled to obtain under Rule 223(3). ... Overall, I find that while some effort was made by the Defendants to comply with their undertakings, in many instances it appears to amount to an inquiry that is cursory in nature. Their efforts do not give rise to a “genuine and substantial” search as required by their “best efforts” undertakings provided to the Plaintiff.

Decision relates to:



Canadian Intellectual Property