BETWEEN

TO THE PLAINTIFF:

YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ADMIT, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the following facts:

1. The links that are complained of by the plaintiff were removed on May 22, 1999, a day after receiving the plaintiff's letter notifying the defendants of an objection.

2. At no material time did the plaintiff's copyright notice contain any reference or prohibition against either 'linking' or framing'.

3. It is the plaintiff's policy to not prohibit or prevent 'linking' to the plaintiff web site. If a certain link to the plaintiff's web site is objectionable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff then notifies the other party who has linked to the plaintiff's web site, that such linking must cease.

4. It is the plaintiff's policy to not prohibit or prevent 'framing' to the plaintiff web site. If a certain frame of the plaintiff's web site is objectionable to the plaintiff, the plaintiff then notifies the other party who has framed to the plaintiff's web site, that such linking must cease.

5. The plaintiff was aware that the defendants' web site was not intended to be open to the public until June 29, 1999.

6. The within action was commenced on June 24, 1999, with the plaintiff's full knowledge that the "frames" and "links" had already been removed.

7. The plaintiff has not been assigned in writing, the copyright to those web pages that it claims that the defendants illegally linked and/or framed to.

8. At no material time did the plaintiff web site offer free web site building/hosting, free email, or free communications tools; all services that were offered by the defendants' web site at all material times.

9. The plaintiff web site is a for-profit web site.

10. The defendant web site is intended as a not-for-profit web site.

11. The defendants did not maliciously or deliberately choose the name, Toronto2, to harm the plaintiff or to deceive viewers.

12. There are at least 1018 domain names that are registered with Network Solutions that all contain the word, "Toronto".

13. The plaintiff's web site name describes the origin and nature of the services that it offers.

14. The plaintiff, at no material time, engaged in any advertising activities beyond the Province of Ontario.

15. The plaintiff, at no material time, was well known outside of the Province of Ontario.

16. The suffix, ".com", refers to a commercial web site, and is generic and non-distinctive. This suffix is available to anyone who registers an available domain name.

17. There are numerous Internet-based guides and directories about the City of Toronto, that contain the word, "Toronto" in their domain name.

18. The plaintiff has no objection to the web site called "4Toronto.com" located at http://www.4Toronto.com".

19. The plaintiff web site is not affiliated with the City of Toronto.

20. The plaintiff made an Application for trade-mark registration with the CIPO, on or about October 14, 1998.

21. On or about June 1, 1999, the plaintiff received its first Examiner's Report. The plaintiff has its Application pending.

22. Visitors looking for a site about Toronto or looking specifically for toronto.com may locate it by typing in the words, www.toronto.com into their web browser without ever having seen or heard of the web site, owned by the plaintiff, called toronto.com.

23. The plaintiff's web site is predominantly in the nature of a guide and directory to goods and services in the City of Toronto.

24. As of the date of the commencement of proceedings, a small fraction of the Toronto2 web site contained a list of places to go and things to see within the City of Toronto.

25. At no material time was there any similarity in get-up between the plaintiff's and defendants' web site.

26. The plaintiff commenced the within action without having already suffered any damages as a result of either passing of or copyright infringement, as alleged against the defendants.

27. The within action was commenced by the plaintiff in anticipation of future harms that the plaintiff believed that it would suffer as a result of the defendants' conduct, as alleged.

28. To date, the plaintiff is unaware of any general or specific damage that it has suffered as a result of the conduct of the defendants, as alleged.

29. The absolute earliest that the plaintiff web site could have acquired a secondary meaning was March 30, 1998.

30. March 30, 1998 was the date on which the plaintiff commenced its advertising and promotion of the toronto.com web site.

YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ADMIT, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the
Authenticity of the following documents:

1. Letter from Deeth Williams Wall to Friendship Enterprises, dated May 21, 1999;

2. Plaintiff’s Copyright Notice as appeared on http://www.toronto.com on or about September 21, 1999;

3. Front page of the plaintiffs’ web site, as of on or about August 9, 1999 ;

4. Front page of defendants’ web site as of on or about September 13, 1999;

5. True copy of the “glossary” portion of the defendants’ web site as of on or about August 8, 1999;

6. List of the Internet addresses that Friendship Enterprises owns, that form the Canada2 Network, as of on or about September 21, 1999;

7. True copy of the Network Solutions registration entry for toronto.com, dated July 5, 1999;

8. True copies of 28 Network solutions registrations of Internet addresses, as of on or about August 22, 1999;

9. List of about 1018 Internet addresses that begin with the word “Toronto, as of on or about September 15, 1999;

10. True copy of the front page of the web site (printed September 21, 1999), “4Toronto”;

11. True copy of pages of the web site called “Yahoo.ca” (printed September 21, 1999);

12. True copy of the front page of the City of Toronto’s official web site, as of on or about September 21, 1999;

13. True copy of the Internet web site called “Tourism Toronto” (printed September 21, 1999);

14. True copy (printed September 21, 1999) of the front page of the web site called “TORINFO.COM”;

15. True copy (printed September 21, 1999) of the front page of the web site called “Show Me Toronto”;

16. True copy (printed September 21, 1999) of the front page of the web site called “Access Toronto”;

17. True copy of the front page (printed September 21, 1999) of the web site called “Where Toronto”;

18. True copy of the front page (printed September 21, 1999) of the web site called “Bizlook”’

19. True copies of the Examiner’s Reports from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, dated June 1, 1999;

20. True copy of the counter statistics for the defendants’ web site from May 16, 1999 to September 21, 1999.

21. True copy of Examiner's Report of CIPO in respect of Application for registration of toronto.com and "toronto.com all you need to know about T.O.", dated November 4, 1999;

22. Letter from Smart & Biggar to Registrar of Trademarks regarding toronto.com, dated October 1, 1999;

22. True copy of Network Solutions domain name registry item for "toronto1.com", dated on or about February 2, 2000;

23. HTML/electronic version of toronto2.com web site, located at http://www.toronto2.com, as of on or about February 2, 2000 (on disk);

24. HTML/electronic version of toronto.com, located at http://www.toronto.com, as of on or about February 2, 2000 (on disk);

25. Invoice from Critical Path Inc. to Syne-Post Communications, dated August 31, 1999, in amount of $1,866.23;

26. Invoice from Syne-Post Communications to Mr. Garth Cole, dated October 2, 1999, in amount of $10,437.85;

27. Invoice from Syne-Post Communications to Friendship Enterprises, undated, in amount of $1,250.00;

THESE DOCUMENTS (with exception of Item #22) have not been attached as copies as they are already in the possession of the plaintiff.

YOU MUST RESPOND TO THIS REQUEST by serving a response to request to admit in Form 256 prescribed by the Federal Court Rules, 1998, WITHIN 20 DAYS after this request is served on you. If you fail to do so, you will be deemed to admit, for the purposes of this proceeding only, the truth of the facts and the authenticity of the documents set out above.

Date: May 2, 2000

NEINSTEIN & ASSOCIATES
60 Bloor Street West
; Suite 1500
; Toronto, Ontario
; Canada M4W 3B8

TO: DEETH WILLIAMS WALL
National Bank Building
Suite 400, 150 York Street
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5
Solicitors for the plaintiff