His Majesty the King v. Tianfu Liu
CITATION: R. v. Liu, 2026 ONCJ 245
DATE: April 28, 2026
COURT FILE: Toronto 4863-999-00-8487654Z 4863-999-00-8487655Z
O N T A R I O C O U R T O F J U S T I C E
B E T W E E N :
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
TIANFU LIU
Before Justice H.S. Amarshi
Reasons for Judgment released on April 28, 2026
Counsel: K. Javadi.......................................................................... counsel for the Appellant, Tianfu Liu D. Zeqo............................................................... counsel for the Respondent, City of Toronto A. Mahmood............................................................................... counsel for Ronnie Yin Kit Shi
H.S. Amarshi J.:
A. Introduction
Tianfu Liu is appealing a decision of a Justice of the Peace denying his application under s. 11 of the Provincial Offences Act to reopen two convictions entered in his absence on September 2, 2025. Previously convictions were entered for driving while using a hand-held communication device and failing to proceed when facing a green signal for offences contrary to sections 78.1 and 144 (12) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The initial reopening application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr. Liu. The difficulty is that it was not his affidavit. He did not swear it, nor did he sign it. He never met the paralegal who commissioned it.
The facts clearly establish the affidavit was falsely prepared and filed by persons associated with an unlicensed operation – Wensheng Legal. The affidavit was commissioned by Ronnie Yin Kit Shi, a licensed paralegal, who failed to take basic steps to confirm the identity of an individual he met over a brief video, purporting to be the appellant.
B. Procedural History
Tianfu Liu was charged on July 15, 2025, by police during a traffic stop. He did not file a Notice of Intention to Appear within the fifteen-day period as allowed by statute.
Convictions were subsequently entered on September 2, 2025, after the appellant failed to respond.
Nine days later, Mr. Liu learned of the convictions when he received a notice from the Ministry of Transportation advising of a three-day driver’s licence suspension effective September 16, 2025, because of the unpaid fines.
Shortly after, reopening applications were filed on the appellant’s behalf, each purportedly sworn by him and commissioned by Ronnie Shi. The reopening applications were denied by a Justice of the Peace on September 29, 2025. The reasons provided were “supporting documents are insufficient or unclear.”
The appellant is seeking the order denying reopening be set aside and the convictions be struck.
This matter was initially in front of Justice R. Silverstein, who upon reviewing the appellant’s materials directed notice be given to Mr. Shi of the allegations, and ordered his attendance on the next return date.[^1]
Ronnie Shi attended in person on February 5, 2026, in front of this court. Given the nature of the allegations, I allowed Mr. Shi an opportunity to obtain independent legal advice.
The hearing resumed on March 23, 2026, and Mr. Shi attended with counsel – Aleena Mahmood.
Counsel filed extensive materials including chat records, emails, identification documents, and correspondence obtained from Wensheng Legal. Mr. Shi testified at the hearing and was cross-examined.
At the close of evidence, Prosecutor Dajana Zeqo conceded the appeal. It was a well-founded concession in the circumstances.
C. Factual Record
(i) Retention of Wensheng Legal
Tianfu Liu is a Mandarin-speaker and English is not his first language. A day after receiving the traffic tickets he made contact through WeChat, a social media platform, with a business operating under the name – “Wensheng Legal.”
The business, which had a Mandarin-language website, advertised representation in traffic ticket matters. He understood from the website that Wensheng Legal was a firm of licensed paralegals and lawyers.
The appellant spoke to an individual known to him as “Johnny.” He never met Johnny in person, and all communication was through various messaging and social media services.
Mr. Liu paid “Johnny” $1300 via e-transfer and was issued an invoice in Mandarin. Of note, the invoice promises the withdrawal of the hand-held communication device charge and the avoidance of any licence suspension.
On July 29, 2025, Johnny messaged the appellant that “everything is already being taken care of. Please rest assured.” The assumption was that Mr. Liu would receive in due course a notice of trial and be represented by Wensheng Legal, instead he was convicted of the traffic offences.
On September 15, 2025, the appellant upon learning of his convictions contacted Johnny though WeChat. He replied: “Our computer happened to be having some issues at that time, so we mailed the documents of some of the cases over for filing.” Mr. Liu understood this to mean that Wensheng had mailed the tickets to the court but that the court had lost them.
(ii) The Commissioning of the Impugned Affidavit
Ronald Shi is a licensed paralegal and has been practising for approximately twenty-five years. His area of expertise is provincial offences.
The evidence is clear that Mr. Shi was never retained by the appellant and had never met him. He testified that he received a call from Johnny on September 8, 2025, asking him to conduct a virtual commissioning of an affidavit. He agreed.
Mr. Shi had known Johnny since 2023 and would send him referrals, between ten and twenty over a two-year period. Despite this working relationship, Mr. Shi does not know Johnny’s last name, nor has he ever seen his identification. They met briefly in Mr. Shi’s office in 2024.
The next day Johnny called Mr. Shi again via WeChat video. The call included a second person purporting to be Tianfu Liu. To verify the person’s identity, Mr. Shi relied on a photograph of an Ontario driver’s licence that was posted in a group chat. Mr. Shi printed the image from his computer which was included in the materials filed in this appeal.
The image of the driver’s licence is of a poor quality. The printout is in black and white and small. It is rotated sideways.
Mr. Shi agreed on cross-examination, that the image is “quite unclear.” He did not ask for a clearer copy, nor did he ask for a second clearer piece of identification. Despite this he was satisfied the licence belonged to the person present on the video call.
Mr. Shi did make some basic inquiries. He asked the person whether he was Tianfu Liu. He said yes. He inquired whether he prescribed to a religion, for the purposes of an affirmation or oath. Mr. Shi proceeded by way of an affirmation, confirming with the male the contents of the affidavit were true. He could not recall whether he asked the person to confirm his date of birth, nor the address on the driver’s licence. He did not explain the contents of the affidavit. The entire commissioning was conducted in Mandarin. The affidavit was in English. I do note that the affidavit was short, only a few lines.
Once the WeChat session was completed, Mr. Shi received an e-mail with multiple attachments and applied his commissioner’s stamp and signature to each affidavit. He compared the signature on the documents with the signature on the licence image. He was satisfied they matched.
Mr. Shi reasonably conceded there were deficiencies in the affidavit - it did not record that the oath was administered remotely, nor did it record the location of the deponent. Mr. Shi subsequently couriered the completed reopening packages to the POA court in Scarborough.
Mr. Shi testified that upon observing Tianfu Liu in the courtroom on the last court date, he was not the individual present on the video call, who he described as having a smaller build.
Notwithstanding there exists a fraudulent misrepresentation of identity in this case, the contents of the affidavit were false. The affidavit asserts Mr. Liu mailed his original traffic ticket to the court and selected the trial option. Mr. Liu retains the originals and never mailed them. The statement that he learned of the conviction online on September 9, 2025, is false. He learned of his conviction by mail from the Ministry of Transportation days later.
As noted, the reopening application was denied by a Justice of the Peace. It is an unsurprising decision given the sparse details and lack of substantiation included in the application.
Mr. Liu was subsequently informed, through Johnny, that the reopening had been denied. The appellant subsequently retained paralegal Kerry Javadi.
According to Mr. Liu he had never seen the affidavit signed in his name previous to this appeal, specifically he did not prepare, authorize, or sign the reopening affidavit. He confirms the contents of the affidavit were untrue, and further he did not know Ronnie Shi.
D. Ronnie Shi’s Evidence and Credibility Findings
I found Mr. Shi to be an honest and credible witness. He did not try to minimize his conduct. He frankly acknowledged, he had “made a mistake,” “learned a lesson,” and “should have done much better.” Although this court is not imposing any sanctions, he expressed remorse for his lack of diligence and resolved to stop the practice of virtual commissioning.
Mr. Shi provided context about his life and family circumstances. He testified he was tired and busy during this period of time. That he was having some family challenges experiencing stress and depression. He said he hoped to retire soon.
I accepted his evidence that he did not suspect, at the time he commissioned the affidavits, that the affiant on the video was not Tianfu Liu. He did not know or suspect the “signature” on the emailed documents had been forged and the reopening documents falsely prepared.
Ms. Mahmood conceded Mr. Shi had been careless but emphasized that he was also deceived. She points to his years of unblemished practice.
I accept those submissions. It does not, however, change my conclusions about whether Mr. Shi met the professional standards required of him.
E. The Standard of Care Required of a Commissioner of Affidavits
Mr. Shi’s conduct in this case fell below the standard we expect of legal professionals.
During the course of this appeal, the prosecutor provided the court with a copy of the Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act. Paralegals licensed by the Law Society of Ontario are commissioners for taking affidavits.
Section 9(2) of the Act provides that an oath or declaration may be administered remotely where it is done in accordance with the regulations. Ontario Regulation 431/20 was enacted in August 2020 to govern the remote administering of oaths and declarations - likely in response to the COVID pandemic. Section 1 sets out five conditions, each of which must be met for a valid remote commissioning:
(a) the oath or declaration must be administered by an electronic method of communication in which the commissioner and the deponent can see, hear and communicate with each other in real time throughout the entire transaction;
(b) the commissioner must confirm the identity of the deponent;
(c) a modified jurat must be used that indicates (i) that the oath or declaration was administered in accordance with the Regulation, and (ii) the location of the commissioner and of the deponent at the time of administering;
(d) in the case of a commissioner to whom s. 5 of the Act applies (which includes licensed paralegals), the information on the commissioner’s stamp must appear on or in the document being signed; and
(e) the commissioner must take reasonable precautions in the execution of his or her duties, including ensuring that the deponent understands what is being signed.
Section 2 adds a further requirement: the commissioner must keep a record of the transaction.
Each of these five conditions is mandatory. Absent one or more of these conditions the affidavit commissioned remotely is not valid.
In Gerling Global General Insurance Co. v. Siskind, Cromarty, Ivey & Dowler, (2002) 2002 49480 (ON SC), 59 O.R. (3d) 555 (SCJ), Justice Nordheimer, as he then was, considered the nature of representations made by a commissioner. Specifically, the commissioner makes three key representations: the identity of the deponent, the time and place of swearing, and the fact of swearing.
Although the commissioner is not warranting the truth of the affidavit’s contents, these procedural safeguards provide foundational assurances to the court that the affidavit evidence can be relied upon.
F. Findings on Mr. Shi’s Conduct
Ronnie Shi failed to be satisfied the deponent was the person named in the affidavit. He relied on identification of poor quality and failed to make basic inquiries. The duty under s. 1(1) 2 of the Ontario Regulation 431/20 (Administering Oath or Declaration Remotely), is heightened, not lessened, when the commissioner has no prior acquaintance with the deponent. This is especially true when the commissioning occurs remotely through an intermediary.
I further note the affidavit was in English. The proposed deponent spoke only Mandarin. Mr. Shi did not translate the document, nor have it translated. Mr. Shi could not be satisfied the deponent understood the contents of the affidavit as he was required to do so.
The affidavit does not reveal it was commissioned remotely. In fact, a plain reading of the document would lead to the conclusion it was completed in person for all parties, that was not the case. It does identify Mr. Shi as being in Markham, but the location of the deponent was unknown to Mr. Shi based on his evidence and therefore contrary to the Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act, which requires the location of the commissioner and of the deponent be identified at the time of administering.
Mr. Shi was negligent in the manner in which he confirmed representations comprising the affidavit. The result of his lack of diligence resulted in the filing of documents, relied upon by the court, but sworn by someone other than the named deponent. Again, I appreciate that Mr. Shi himself was the victim of a fraudulent misrepresentation, however, the safeguards established in the Act are in place to prevent this very scenario.
G. The Reopening Must Be Granted
The substantive test on a reopening application under s. 11(2) of the POA, is whether the appellant establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that through no fault of their own they was unable to appear at the hearing. An appellant who establishes that test is entitled, as of right, to have the conviction struck. Mr. Liu has satisfied this requirement. The conviction and the denial of reopening both arose, from fraudulent or negligent conduct by other individuals.
Given the factual findings made in these proceedings, these reasons are to be reported to the Law Society of Ontario. I add, I did not find that Mr. Shi acted dishonestly or with any intention to deceive. I accept that he believed the person on the video was Mr. Liu and he did not profit from the commissioning. Those facts may be relevant to what the Law Society may choose to do. To be clear, despite these considerations, Mr. Shi did not meet the professional standards required of him in this case.
H. Disposition
- For the reasons set out above, I make the following orders:
(a) the appeal is allowed, and the reopening is granted;
(b) the order of the Justice of the Peace dated September 29, 2025, denying the reopening of the two convictions entered against Tianfu Liu on September 2, 2025 is set aside;
(c) the two convictions of September 2, 2025 are struck;
(d) a copy of these reasons is to be provided to the Law Society of Ontario.
I want to thank the paralegals and counsel that appeared before me for their professionalism and thoughtful submissions in this matter.
Mr. Liu has waited long enough for his day in court on the underlying traffic offences. He did everything he thought he was supposed to do. He engaged what he believed to be a licensed legal service and waited for his trial date. He was failed at every stage.
How these offences are ultimately determined is a matter for a trial court. What I can do today is to ensure that he gets there.
H.S. Amarshi J.
[^1]: See City of Toronto v. Hill, 2007 ONCJ 253, a decision by Libman J. provided to the court by the prosector, that sets out the procedural protocol where there is an allegation of professional incompetence or dishonesty against a paralegal. The paralegal must be given notice of the allegations and a fair opportunity to respond.