Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Associate Justice Barnes granted Anukriti Goswami leave under Rule 15.01(2) to represent her corporation, Anukriti Creatives Inc., in the underlying copyright infringement litigation against Rethink Communications LP and Molson Coors Beverage Company.
   
• The seven-factor test from Extend-a-Call v. Granovski, supplemented by three additional factors drawn from Ward v. 1121720 Ontario Ltd. and applied in Super Channel International Corp., governed the Court's analysis.
   
• Defendants conceded that Ms. Goswami satisfied the first four Extend-a-Call criteria, narrowing the dispute to her capacity to advocate for the corporation and its financial ability to retain counsel.
   
• Evidence of Ms. Goswami's well-prepared motion materials and professional conduct during the hearing persuaded the Court that she could adequately represent ACI's interests.
   
• Financial capability to retain counsel was found not to be a mandatory threshold for a small, closely held corporation such as ACI.
   
• Leave was granted without prejudice to the defendants' right to later seek review, withdrawal, or conditions on Ms. Goswami's representative status.
   

Facts of the case

Anukriti Goswami, a professional photographer, and her corporation, Anukriti Creatives Inc. (ACI), sued Rethink Communications LP and Molson Coors Beverage Company over the alleged unauthorized use of five of her photographs in an online advertising campaign for the "Belgian Moon" beer brand, with Rethink acting as Molson Coors' advertising agency. The Statement of Claim was issued February 16, 2024, and served February 27, 2024. The plaintiffs' original law firm removed itself from the record on August 18, 2025, following a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, and Associate Justice Josefo's order of that date gave the plaintiff corporation 90 days to retain new counsel or obtain leave for a non-lawyer representative. Ms. Goswami filed a Notice of Intention to Act in Person on September 2, 2025, and brought this motion for leave under Rule 15.01(2) to represent ACI, along with a request under Rule 3.02 to extend the 90-day deadline. ACI is a closely held corporation with no employees, in which Ms. Goswami holds 34% of shares and her parents, Neeti and Sanjay Goswami, each hold 33%; all three serve as directors, and the board passed a resolution on October 14, 2025 consenting to Ms. Goswami's representation. Ms. Goswami stated she had consulted roughly 28 lawyers since her prior counsel withdrew, about half of whom did not respond, with the rest declining to act. The motion was originally returnable before Associate Justice Frank on June 18, 2026, and was adjourned to Associate Justice Barnes' long motions date of July 15, 2026, when the original time estimate proved insufficient.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The motion turned on Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits a corporation to be represented by a non-lawyer only with leave of the court, and Rule 3.02, under which the plaintiff sought an extension of the 90-day deadline fixed by AJ Josefo's prior order. The governing test for Rule 15.01(2) leave was set out in Extend-a-Call v. Granovski et al, 2009 OJ No 2711, which identifies seven factors, including authorization by the corporation, the representative's connection to and comprehension of the corporation's affairs, protection of stakeholder interests, the corporation's closely held structure, the representative's capacity to advocate, the corporation's financial ability to retain counsel, and any other relevant factor. Super Channel International Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 ONSC 1439, added three further considerations drawn from Ward v. 1121720 Ontario Ltd., addressing the corporation's internal governance, fairness to the opposing party, and the representative's ability to fulfill a litigant's procedural duties. The Court also referenced Rule 1.04(1), which calls for the "just, most expeditious and least expensive determination" of civil proceedings, and Rule 57.01, governing the exercise of discretion on costs.

Reasoning and analysis

The defendants conceded, or did not seriously dispute, that Ms. Goswami met the first four Extend-a-Call criteria and the related governance factor from Super Channel, given her clear authorization, her connection to ACI, its closely held structure, and the alignment between her interests and the company's. The contest centred on criterion (v), her capacity to competently advocate for ACI, and criterion (vi), ACI's financial ability to retain counsel. On capacity, the Court found Ms. Goswami's motion materials to be of high quality, noted her ability to navigate scheduling and filing systems, and observed that she conducted herself in a composed and respectful manner during argument. The Court distinguished the defendants' authorities, Stile Carpentry Ltd. v. 20044424 Ontario Inc., 2025 ONCA 669, and 1876029 Ontario Ltd. v. Smart Renovation Solutions et al., 2023 ONSC 1241, in both of which leave had been denied due to fabricated citations or an inability to grasp the pleaded issues, finding Ms. Goswami's conduct not comparable to that misconduct. On financial capability, the Court held that impecuniosity is not a mandatory prerequisite for a small, closely held corporation, relying on Lamond v. Smith, 2004 CanLII 6218, and distinguishing The Corporation of the City of Elliot Lake v. United Bunkers Investors Corporation, 2021 ONSC 5467, GlycoBioSciences Inc. v. Industria Farmaceutica Andromaco S.A. et al, 2024 ONCA 481, and Tarza Construction Services Corp v. Mamdeen et al, 2025 ONSC 536, each of which involved either multiple failed criteria or doubts about the representative's competence rather than financial capacity alone. As to the residual seventh factor, the Court found that timely access to justice for the plaintiffs would be effectively impossible without granting leave, given Ms. Goswami's repeated unsuccessful efforts to retain counsel.

Ruling and overall outcome

Associate Justice Barnes found that Ms. Goswami had, on balance, satisfied all of the Extend-a-Call criteria and granted her leave under Rule 15.01(2) to represent ACI, together with an extension under Rule 3.02 of the 90-day deadline from AJ Josefo's August 18, 2025 order, running to the date the parties submit or the Court settles the resulting order. This leave was granted without prejudice to the defendants' right to later bring a motion to review, withdraw, or impose conditions on Ms. Goswami's representative status, should her conduct of the litigation become problematic. On costs, the Court characterized the outcome as one of mixed success: while Ms. Goswami obtained the relief sought, it was not unqualified, and the Court noted that the defendants were owed costs thrown away for the aborted June 18, 2026 motion attendance due to Ms. Goswami's initial underestimate of the time needed for argument. Ultimately, exercising discretion under Rule 57.01, the Court ordered that both sides bear their own costs of the motion.