What is the test for establishing that a party signed an unwritten contract for repairs and servicing of a Defendant’s vehicle?

The issue here is to determine what the intention of the party was when entering into this unwritten contract for the repairs and servicing of the defendants’ vehicle. The law is quite clear in situations of this nature that if the defendants wish to avail themselves of the defense that the plaintiff was dealing with a corporation and not with them as individuals, it is the defendants who have the onus of proving that the plaintiffs were aware of the capacity in which they were acting (ie: only as agents for the corporation). This requires reasonable notification of this fact (see Truster v. Tri-Lux Fine Homes Ltd.[1]). As Kozak J. stated in Clow Darling Ltd. v. 1013983 Ontario Inc.[2], at paragraph 16: “Nor can it be said that a business card that was handed out, some two years earlier to the plaintiff’s service representative, discharge the heavy onus that is placed on a person to show that he is negotiating on behalf of the company and not in his personal capacity. He cannot simply contract in a trade name and expect that the people with whom he is dealing with conclude that he is acting for a limited company. This fact must be made clear during negotiations of the contract, especially so if there have been no prior concluded agreements between the plaintiff and the limited company.”