The Plaintiff, Royal Services, sued for unpaid invoices which were charged for labour and materials associated with renovations to the home of the Defendants. The Defendants Counterclaimed, complaining that work was incomplete and that the Plaintiffs were negligent when installing an in-floor heating system.

The Defendants argued that there was no privity of contract between themselves and the numbered company. Justice Pentelechuk noted that Rule 2.5 allows an Action to be brought by the trade name of a business carried on by a sole proprietor. Further, the Defendant has the option to serve a Notice requiring the business to disclose the legal name of the person carrying on the business.

The Plaintiff sought to dispute the admissibility of the Defendant’s Expert’s Report. The Court held that the Plaintiff’s objections to the expert were inappropriate, as they failed to serve a Notice of Objection in accordance with Rule 5.36. The Court noted that this Rule prevents objections regarding the admissibility of an Expert’s Report at Trial unless reasonable notice of the objection is given. Further, the Court stated that Rule 5.36, alongside Rule 5.35, obliges service of an objection to an Expert’s Report in advance of Trial to prevent surprise and unnecessary adjournments.

The Court held that each party was liable to the other, and ordered that the Defendants could set off the amounts.