Ford Winston Wong

This decision concerns the penalty for civil contempt against Yangguang Lin, a defendant in a civil fraud proceeding.

Lin was found in contempt for failing to comply with a Mareva injunction order requiring him to provide financial information about luxury vehicles.

Despite multiple opportunities and a prior declaration of breach, Lin continued his non-compliance, showing disrespect for court orders and processes.

The court applied a five-factor test for civil contempt sanctions, finding aggravating circumstances due to Lin's deliberate evasion and the significant financial impact on the plaintiffs.

Given Lin's flight risk and unlikelihood of paying a fine, the court determined that incarceration was the only reasonable and proportionate remedy to ensure compliance and uphold the integrity of the court's process.

The plaintiffs, Li Yang (Canada) Holdings Co. Ltd. and Daniel Executive (Canada) Holdings Corp., brought a motion for default judgment and contempt against the Lin Defendants (LYSR Management Ltd., 2708042 Ontario Inc., 2786584 Ontario Inc., Rina Shinchi, and Yangguang Lin).

The case involved a scheme where the Lin Defendants allegedly borrowed money from the plaintiffs to purchase luxury vehicles for export, providing fraudulent documentation and failing to repay loans.

The court found a strong prima facie case for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy.

Despite multiple opportunities, the Lin Defendants failed to participate in the motion.

The court granted default judgment against all Lin Defendants for over $4 million in damages and found Yangguang Lin in contempt of a prior Mareva injunction order.

The Mareva injunction was subsequently vacated as interlocutory orders merge with judgment.

This endorsement addresses a return of a matter concerning limitations on a Mareva injunction and living expenses.

Despite previous opportunities, no evidence was filed by the parties.

The Wei defendants did not seek any limitations.

Counsel for the Lin defendants reported difficulties obtaining instructions, non-compliance with court orders (affidavit, cross-examinations, costs), and a potential conflict of interest between Ms. Shinchi and Mr. Lin.

The plaintiffs highlighted the Lin defendants' continued non-compliance and alleged deliberate avoidance of asset disclosure.

The court ordered the Lin defendants to provide their address for personal service within seven days, failing which substituted service for a contempt motion via email was authorized.

The court declined to schedule further return dates for Mareva injunction issues and reserved costs.

This endorsement follows a Mareva injunction order, addressing outstanding issues of asset disclosure, living and business operating expenses, and limitations to the injunction.

The court ordered the Lin Defendants to attend examinations on their assets within two weeks, validated service on them as of November 15, 2022, and directed them to file a Statement of Defence within 30 days.

The Mareva injunction was continued, and the parties were ordered to re-attend to finalize limitations and expenses.

The court also addressed the potential sale of two Bentley vehicles held overseas.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful Mareva injunction motion brought by the Plaintiffs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs against the Defendants due to their reprehensible conduct, including the filing of a false affidavit by one defendant, and the overall lack of merit in the defence presented by both groups of defendants, which unnecessarily prolonged and complicated the litigation.

The court emphasized the complexity of the case, the Plaintiffs' complete success, and the reasonable foreseeability of a significant costs order.

The plaintiffs, Li Yang (Canada) Holdings Co. Ltd. and Daniel Executive (Canada) Holdings Corp., sought a Mareva injunction against multiple defendants involved in an alleged multi-layered fraud scheme concerning luxury vehicle exports.

The court found a strong prima facie case for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy against the Lin Defendants (LYSR Management Ltd., 2708042 Ontario Inc., 2786584 Ontario Inc., Rina Shinchi, Yangguang Lin) and the Zheng Defendants (Wei Zheng, Location Way Inc.).

The court also found a real risk of asset dissipation, noting the defendants' fraudulent conduct and attempts to mislead.

The motion was dismissed against Zi Mu Li and Renxiangyu Zhang due to insufficient evidence.

The Mareva injunction was granted against the remaining defendants to prevent asset dissipation.

Following a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs regarding a residential condominium property dispute, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs of $200,000, while the defendant argued for no costs or a nominal amount due to credibility findings.

The court found the matter complex but not vexatious, rejecting full indemnity.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $110,908.00.

The plaintiffs, parents of the defendant, sought summary judgment to remove the defendant's name from the title of a condominium property they held as joint tenants.

The defendant claimed the property was purchased as an investment through a loan agreement that constituted a disguised mortgage, and that the plaintiffs' action was statute-barred.

The court found the loan agreement was not a disguised mortgage and that the defendant had agreed in writing in 2004 to relinquish her interest in exchange for $91,000 USD, which she received.

The court held the defendant breached the contract by refusing to transfer title, and granted summary judgment ordering the removal of her name from the title.

The plaintiff, Parker Lee, sued the defendants, Feng Qing He and Jie He, for the balance owing on a $700,000 mortgage after default.

The defendants disputed various claimed fees, alleging they were illegal or unreasonable, and counterclaimed for damages due to an inability to refinance.

The court conducted a mini-trial to determine the validity of an increased interest rate, a three-month bonus interest, and several administrative, investigation, rent attornment, property management, and legal fees.

The court found the increased interest rate and most administrative and property management fees invalid, but allowed some statement fees, rent attornment fees, and legal fees.

The defendants' counterclaim for damages was dismissed as they failed to prove they were ready, willing, and able to refinance.

The defendants defaulted on a $700,000 mortgage and sought an order under s. 12 of the Mortgages Act to discharge the mortgage by paying an undisputed amount into court while delaying enforcement to secure refinancing.

The plaintiff opposed paying less than the full claimed amount and delaying enforcement.

The court granted the defendants 15 days to pay the undisputed amount of $745,465 to postpone the mortgage, failing which the plaintiff would be entitled to partial summary judgment and a writ of possession.

The disputed balance was ordered to be determined at a mini-trial.

The plaintiff structural steel subcontractor registered a construction lien and sued the general contractor and the owner for unpaid invoices and extras on a fixed-price contract.

The subcontractor had abandoned the project prior to completion due to non-payment.

The court found that the subcontractor breached the contract by walking away, as progress payments for the final phase were not yet due.

The subcontractor's claims for extras were largely dismissed because they were not approved in advance and lacked independent proof of value.

The owner's counterclaim for delay and inspection costs was partially allowed, while the general contractor's counterclaim was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The subcontractor and general contractor were found jointly and severally liable to the owner for delay and inspection costs, setting off the small amount allowed for one extra.

Following a trial under the Construction Lien Act, the successful lien claimant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $107,000, or alternatively partial indemnity costs exceeding $71,000.

The court considered the factors under Rules 57.01, 49 and 1.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 86 of the Construction Lien Act, including the result achieved, proportionality, conduct of the parties, and reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful parties.

Although the successful party prevailed on most issues, the court found the time docketed and hourly rates claimed were excessive and disproportionate to the modest amounts in dispute.

The court also noted that the defendants’ conduct unnecessarily increased costs by pursuing trivial claims and taking unreasonable litigation positions.

Costs were fixed at a reduced partial indemnity amount reflecting fairness and proportionality.

A contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment for renovation and addition work performed on the defendants’ residence.

The owners counterclaimed for delay damages, alleged deficiencies, and damages for a grossly excessive lien under the Construction Lien Act, and also brought a third‑party claim against the contractor’s principal.

The court held that the contracting party was the plaintiff corporation despite the use of a different business name in the written contracts, and that the lien had been properly preserved and perfected.

The owners were found to have breached the contract by failing to pay the balance owing after completion of the work.

Although the owners established contractual delay damages, most alleged deficiencies were not proven or were outside the scope of the contract.

Judgment was granted to the contractor for the unpaid contract balance subject to a set‑off for delay.

The applicant, who suffers from Generalized Anxiety Disorder, alleged he was terminated from his employment because of his disability and perceived disability.

The respondent claimed the applicant voluntarily resigned because he found the job too stressful.

The Tribunal found the applicant's version of events more credible, supported by contemporaneous notes from the Human Rights Legal Support Centre and text messages.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was terminated and his disability was a factor.

The respondent was ordered to pay $25,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, $33,280 for lost wages, and to implement human rights policies and training.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order upholding a Master's decision to set aside a previous order dismissing the plaintiffs' action.

The action had been dismissed after the plaintiffs failed to post security for costs.

The court found that while there were conflicting decisions regarding the application of Rule 37.14(1)(a), it was not desirable to grant leave to appeal in this case due to its specific circumstances, including the plaintiffs being unrepresented foreign residents at the time of the dismissal.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

In an addendum to an appeal decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered costs of the appeal before the lower court judge to the appellants in the amount of $3,500 all inclusive.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that interfered with an assessment officer's decision regarding a solicitor's account.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appeal judge failed to apply the appropriate standard of review.

The court noted that an appeal from an assessment officer is only concerned with questions of principle, not amounts or discretion, unless the decision is unreasonable.

The assessment officer's order was restored.

In a supplementary endorsement, the Court of Appeal clarified its previous order regarding a commercial lease dispute.

The Court confirmed that the trial of the issue was ordered only on Part 4 of section 444.1(1) of the Municipal Act, as the offer to lease entered into before June 11, 1998, satisfied Part 1 of the section.

The appellant appealed an order of the applications judge regarding a commercial lease and the elimination of business tax.

The Court of Appeal found that the applications judge's inference that the parties took the elimination of business tax into account when negotiating rent was weak and conflicted with objective evidence.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order, and directed a trial of the issue of whether the remedial provisions of section 444.1(1) of the Municipal Act had been met.