SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

COMMERCIAL LIST

IN THE MATTER OF the bankruptcy of Jay Tien Chiang, of the Town of Richmond Hill, in the Regional Municipality of York, in the Province Of Ontario

RE: Mendlowitz & Associates Inc., in its capacity as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Jay Tien Chiang, and Korea Data Systems (USA), Inc., Plaintiffs

AND:

Jay Tien Chiang, aka Jay Chiang, aka Tienchieh Chiang, Christina Chiang, also known as Suh Mei Tasi, aka Christian Chiang aka Suh Mei Tsai, aka Christina Suh Mei Tsai, aka Suh Mei Tasi Chiang, aka Christina Suh-Mei Chiang aka Suh-Mei Chiang, Chun Chun Wu, Jie Chu Wu, Chen Cheng-Yueh Tsai, Yu Chang Chiang also known as Y.C. Chiang, En Fu Chiang, Brenda Chang, Samson Chang, David Cheng, Everview Inc., 961266 Ontario Inc., 1204360 Ontario Inc., 1243723 Ontario Inc., Aamazing Technologies Inc., Wen Wang Chiang aka Wen Chiang aka Wen Wang, Crystalview Technology Corp., E.C. Holdings Ltd., Telepower International (Canada), Inc., Best Buy Electronics Inc., Su Feng Tsai aka Tsai Su Feng, Tsai Zheng Li, Tsai Zheng Ying, Asia Pacific Gateway (H.K.) Ltd., Century Group Holdings Ltd., Albany Investments Ltd., Mei Huang, Winner International Group Limited, Huang Chi Lung, Min Huang, Wainwright Ventures Ltd., New Global Investment Limited and Floratino Limited, Defendants

BEFORE: D. M. Brown J.

COUNSEL:
C. Francis and M. Freake, for the plaintiff Trustee, Mendlowitz & Associates Inc.

A. Blumenfeld and J. Gibson, for the plaintiff, Korea Data Systems (USA), Inc.

H. Book, for defendant, Christina Chiang

T. Curry, for the defendant/bankrupt, Jay Chiang

HEARD: November 20, 2013, with prior written submissions.

case conference memorandum no. 2

I. Issues relating to or flowing from the Trial Reasons

[1] Further to Case Conference Memorandum No. 1 released on December 2, 2013, I have consulted with A.C.J. Marrocco. Counsel should contact him to arrange for the scheduling of hearings or submissions on the following issues:

(i) The precise nature of the damages, if any, which KDS is entitled to recover from Jay Chiang (Trial Reasons, para. 689);

(ii) If KDS intends to apply at the present time for a specific tracing order, the application should be made to the trial judge. If KDS does not intend to apply at the present time, the application may be brought at a later date before me (Trial Reasons, para. 693);

(iii) The nature of the costs order which should be made against Jay Chiang (Trial Reasons, para. 696); and,

(iv) What order should be made concerning costs as far as Christina Chiang is concerned (Trial Reasons, para. 705);

[2] The parties suggested that submissions would be required on the nature of the constructive trust over the property of Jay Chiang to be included in the Trial Judgment (Trial Reasons, para. 694). The trial judge specifically granted a constructive trust. Accordingly, that relief should be incorporated into the form of order counsel settle. This is not an issue which requires further submissions.

[3] In his contempt reasons dated September 2, 2010, A.C.J. Marrocco found that Jay and Christina Chiang had not purged their contempt and ordered the scheduling of sentencing submissions (2010 ONSC 4804, para. 32). A.C.J. Marrocco will conduct the sentencing hearing. In accordance with an earlier ruling by A.C.J. Marrocco, the issue of the detention of Jay Chiang’s passport and travel documents will form part of the contempt sanction hearing since KDS will be seeking a custodial sentence against Mr. Chiang at the sentencing hearing. (I should note that I granted an event-specific order regarding Mr. Chiang’s passport on November 29, 2013.)

[4] Counsel should contact A.C.J. Marrocco to finalize a schedule for the determination of these issues. The parties must prepare them for adjudication in the very near future.

[5] I will entertain written submissions on the following issues:

(i) Post-judgment interest from April 20, 1998 on the judgment of Justice Seymour which the trial judge recognized for enforcement (Trial Reasons, paras. 673 and 674); and,

(ii) The precise terms of any Mareva injunction in-aid-of-execution (Trial Reasons, para. 691).

[6] Since Case Conference Memorandum No. 1 set a schedule for the filing of submissions on certain issues this year, I think it best to defer submissions on these remaining two issues until early in the New Year. I set the following schedule for written submissions:

(i) No later than Monday, January 27, 2014, KDS shall serve and file written submissions on both issues which are NOT to exceed 20 pages in length, together with authorities;

(ii) All responding parties shall serve and file their written responding submissions and authorities which are NOT to exceed 20 pages in length by Monday, February 17, 2014; and,

(iii) KDS may serve and file brief reply submissions (which are NOT to exceed 5 pages in length) no later than Monday, March 3, 2014.

I shall issue written reasons after receiving those submissions.

[7] These directions deal with the relief sought by the Trustee in paragraphs 3(b), (c), (f) and (h) of its omnibus notice of motion.

[8] Case Conference Memoranda Nos. 1 and 2 identify all remaining issues in this proceeding which require adjudication. The issues list therefore is closed and the parties shall work towards dealing only with those remaining issues.

(original signed by)___

D. M. Brown J.

Date: December 3, 2013