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.

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 appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the parties had amended and revived an original purchase agreement by waiving conditions and lowering the purchase price.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the determination that the parties had agreed to the amendment and revival of the agreement, including the backdating of the amendment to July 14, 2015.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's refusal to grant an adjournment sought by the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements.