Judgment Released: March 22, 2010 Link to Judgment
MCAP leased telephone equipment to Lind. Lind discovered that it had been defrauded as to the lease by its comptroller and had received equipment that was inferior than expected. Lind stopped paying the lease and MCAP sought summary judgment for payments due. The Court found genuine issues for trial as to (a) whether Lind received the equipment or whether the lease was fundamentally breached by MCAP’s failure to deliver it, and (b) if a fraud was committed, whether MCAP was wilfully blind as to its commission or was in the best position to know that it was occurring and take steps to prevent it. The Court found that while amendments to Rule 20 broadened a motion judge’s jurisdiction to make findings of credibility, this was not a case in which it was in the interests of justice for it to exercise the powers under Rule 20.04(2.1). The testimony of more than “a single witness or two” would be required to enable the Court to make the necessary findings of fact. The broad scope of evidence required for determination of the issues precluded a mini-trial as the most appropriate procedure.