Lee v. Chang, 2018 ONSC 2091

CITATION: Lee v. Chang, 2018 ONSC 2091

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 111/18 DATE: 20180328

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

BETWEEN:

KYOUNG HWA LEE and YOUNG SEA GUAK

Sang Joon Bae, for the Plaintiff

Plaintiffs

– and –

MYOUNG JA CHANG a.k.a. MYOUNGJA CHANG a.k.a. MYOUNG-JA CHANG a.k.a. MYOUNG JA YOON a.ka. MYOUNGJA YOON a.k.a. MYOUNG-JA YOON and KWANG EUI CHANG a.k.a KWANGEUI CHANG a.k.a. KWANG-EUI CHANG and JI YOUNG CHANG a.k.a. JENNY CHANG a.k.a. JENNY JI YOUNG CHANG a.k.a. JI-YOUNG CHANG and BO YOUNG CHANG a.k.a. BONNIE CHANG a.k.a. BONNIE BO YOUNG CHANG a.k.a. BO-YOUNG CHANG

Robert Choi, for the Defendants

Defendants

HEARD at Toronto: March 28, 2018

MYERS J. (Orally)

[1] The plaintiffs seek an urgent injunction pending the hearing of a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Favreau J. dated February 7, 2018. There is no urgency. Six weeks have elapsed. If harm was urgently feared, it would have happened by now.

[2] Of greater significance, the transaction that the plaintiffs rely upon to show a risk of dissipation of assets occurred in November and December 2016 - over 15 months ago. The plaintiffs are trying to trace money that they say has been wrongfully kept from them and dissipated. They say they will suffer irreparable harm if the defendants successfully render themselves judgment-proof. But, the only evidence is that the defendants today have a convenience store and that one of the defendants received money from her mother over a year ago and its whereabouts is not yet known.

[3] There is nothing an injunction can to do to help the plaintiffs today. An injunction by contrast will tie up the convenience store impacting on its operation as a business.

[4] What the plaintiffs really want is to trace money through the defendants’ hands. That is part of the tracing remedy that they seek at trial. They are trying to use the injunction to get pre-trial discovery and execution. The evidence of actual wrongdoing against the two children defendants is weak at best. There is little basis to infer a risk of dissipation against them even if there might be an issue as to whether Favreau J. could have received the bank statements as evidence as part of a fresh injunction motion. I wholly agree with her that this is not a case for the extraordinary relief of a Mareva injunction.

[5] The parties should consider speaking to sort out the state of accounts between them as honest, good people who relied on each other for years. The use of a legal war in two provinces with motion after motion will cost more than is at stake between.

[6] If I can help the parties speak to settle, counsel can contact my office together to set up a case conference. Otherwise, they should focus on getting to trial rather than vowing to fight with each other tooth and nail at every step of the way. It is expensive and causes more distress and personal upset to escalate a war. Just produce your documents, mediate, and get to trial. It is the only way to salvage both a meaningful net recovery and perhaps even some relationship.

[7] In my discretion, I award costs to neither side because neither is focused on the efficient resolution of the issues between them. There should be no side claiming victory as yet another skirmish comes and goes with no real end in sight.

___________________________ MYERS J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 28, 2018

Date of Release: April 3, 2018

CITATION: Lee v. Chang, 2018 ONSC 2091

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 111/18 DATE: 20180328

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

BETWEEN:

KYOUNG HWA LEE and YOUNG SEA GUAK

Plaintiffs

– and –

Defendants

ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MYERS J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 28, 2018

Date of Release: April 3, 2018

Lee v. Chang, 2018 ONSC 2091

Case Summary

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues