SCHEDULE A

1. The Defendant, K.R.U.M. Radio Station (“Defendant” for brevity), Inc. adopts by
way of reference, the foregoing allegations, in so far as they may be relevant hereto
and avows by way of defence, the following contentions:

2. Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in the Plaintiff’s claim
except such as are specifically hereinafter admitted.

3. The Defendant admits that it operates a local radio station in Brampton, Ontario.

4. The Defendant is a vibrant local radio station committed to enriching its

community through diverse entertainment programming, with business address
located at 14 Donald Duck Dr., Brampton, Ontario, L7F 1T2.

5. Defendant has proudly been a cornerstone of the entertainment industry for 25

years, establishing itself as a trusted source of creativity, comedy, and
entertainment within the community.

6. Defendant acknowledges that on April 1, 2024, a contest was announced, offering

a prize for the first individual to tattoo the station’s call letters, “K.R.U.M.”, on
their forehead.

7. However, the Defendant asserts that the contest was identified as an April Fool’s
joke, which is a recognized tradition of humour and lightheartedness common in
media.

8. Defendant states that all promotional materials, including the contest

announcement, included a disclaimer that participants should read the official
rules, which were accessible through a provided link.

1
9. The Defendant maintains that the link to the official rules was visible and
accessible to any reasonable listener. The Defendant denies that the font size of the
disclaimer was intentionally deceptive or misleading.

10. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff Ronald Logan (“Plaintiff” for brevity)
acted impulsively in response to the contest announcement and made a personal
decision to tattoo “K.R.U.M.” on his forehead without due consideration or
verification of the contest rules.

11. The Defendant denies that it engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation or any

action that would foreseeably cause the Plaintiff harm. The contest was not
designed to cause distress but rather to entertain, as is customary in radio
promotions.

12. The Defendant denies any claims of emotional or psychological distress as alleged
by the Plaintiff. Any distress suffered by the Plaintiff was the result of his own
actions and decisions following the announcement of the contest.

13. Thus, on October 22, 2024, the Defendant received a copy of the Statement of Claim
seeking damages in the total amount of $35,000 plus interests and court costs
before the Brampton Small Claims Court. The Defendant disputes the Plaintiff’s
claims for damages, including:

a. General Damages of $18, 000 for pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of
reputation, and humiliation. The Defendant asserts that any distress was
self-inflicted and not caused by the Defendant’s actions.
b. Special Damages of $12, 000 for the cost of getting the tattoo and
anticipated removal. The Defendant contends that these costs are not the
result of the Defendant’s conduct.
c. Aggravated Damages of $5,000 for alleged reckless disregard for the
Plaintiff’s well-being. The Defendant argues that the contest was clearly a
joke and not intended to cause harm or distress.

2
 14. For its defence, the Defendant claims the following—

The Defendant did not commit fraudulent misrepresentation

15. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant’s conduct has amounted to fraudulent
misrepresentation. The case of Mariani v. Lemstra, 2004 CanLII 50592 (ONCA) has
established the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation, to wit:
a. False representation of fact;
b. The defendant knew the statement was false or was reckless as to its truth;
c. The defendant made the representation with the intention that it would be
acted upon by the plaintiff;
d. The plaintiff relied upon the statement; and,
e. The plaintiff suffered damage as a result.

16. Going by the elements, the Defendant asserts that there was no false
representation of fact nor was the statement reckless to its truth. Defendant made
radio announcements that were played twice during every program schedule
from 6:00 AM to 12:00 NOON from March 25 to April 1, 2024, stating that the
contest to be held during the April Fool’s Day was a prank. This announcement
was broadcast during the time in which most listeners tuned in to the radio station.
Attached is a copy of the radio announcement script as Exhibit “1” and the audio
recording of the radio announcement as Exhibit “2”.

17. Moreover, the Defendant’s webpage that advertised the contest clearly pointed
out a link which read “Click here for official rules.”. Attached is a screenshot of
the K.R.U.M’s website showing the link of “click here for official rules” as Exhibit
“3”.

18. The abovementioned link led to a page that would state and clarify that the contest
was for April Fool’s Day and was totally fake. Attached is a screenshot of the

3
 K.R.U.M’s website showing that the announcement was for April Fool’s Day as
Exhibit “4”.

19. This program, run by the Defendant radio station, is famous for its outrageous
April Fool's Day pranks, which are held annually. Attached is a copy of the
announcement that was published for last year’s prank as Exhibit “5”. In fact,
K.R.U.M. Radio Station was awarded the best prank program for the year 2023.
Attached is a copy of the Broadcast Award 2023 as Exhibit “6”.

20. Clear as day, Defendant advertised the said contest as a prank and has been done
numerous times in the past. A reasonable person would not take the said
announcement seriously. Hence, the Defendant has no intention that it would be
acted upon by the Plaintiff.

21. The Defendant further asserts that its actions did not result in the damage suffered
by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has failed to establish the causation between the
conduct of the defendant and the damages he incurred.

22. In view of the foregoing, the Defendant should not be held liable for making false
representation against the Plaintiff.

The Defendant did not cause for the severe emotional

and psychological distress of the Plaintiff

23. The Plaintiff willingly and voluntarily participated in the contest, motivated by his
desperate financial needs and circumstances. His actions were a personal choice
made in response to the contest announcement, and he accepted the associated
risks without proper verification of the contest’s legitimacy.

24. The Plaintiff was fully aware of the permanent nature of getting a tattoo. By
choosing to tattoo “K.R.U.M.” on his forehead, he acted carelessly and

4
 impulsively, failing to take the necessary precautions to read and understand the
full contest rules provided on the Defendant’s website. His lack of due diligence
in this matter cannot be attributed to the Defendant.

25. Moreover, no reasonable person would expect the contest to be a legitimate

opportunity, especially given its nature and the context of being announced on
April Fool’s Day. The humorous intent of the contest should have been clear to
any listener.

26. The Plaintiff’s assumption of the contest’s validity reflects a personal misjudgment
rather than any misleading or deceptive conduct by the Defendant.

27. Guided by the principle of volunti non fit injuria in the case of Crocker v. Sundance
Northwest Resorts Ltd., 1988 CanLII 45, which provides that the defence of
voluntary assumption of risk is based on the moral supposition that no wrong is
done to one who consents. By agreeing to assume the risk, the Plaintiff absolves
the defendant of all responsibility for it.

28. Applying the foregoing in the present case, the Plaintiff voluntarily assumed the
risk associated with getting a permanent tattoo. Consequently, any resulting
damage or injury cannot be attributed to the Defendant.

29. Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s emotional and
psychological distress, if any, is not a direct result of the Defendant’s actions but
rather a consequence of his own choices and the extreme measures he took in an
effort to alleviate his financial situation.

30. Given the foregoing, Defendant cannot be held liable for the personal
repercussions stemming from Plaintiff’s voluntary decision to participate in a
prank.

5
 31. All things considered, it is respectfully prayed of this Honourable Small Claims
Court that the instant case be dismissed for lack of merit, with costs to be awarded
to the Defendant.

Attached Documents:
Tab 1: Radio Announcement Script as Exhibit “1”.
Tab 2: Recording of the Radio Announcement as Exhibit “2”.
Tab 3: Screenshot of the K.R.U.M’s website showing the link of “Click here for official
rules” as Exhibit “3”.
Tab 4: Screenshot of the K.R.U.M’s website showing that the announcement was for April
Fool’s Day as Exhibit “4”.
Tab 5: Announcement that was published for last year’s prank as Exhibit “5”.
Tab 6: Broadcast Award 2023 as Exhibit “6”.