Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-647366

DATE: 20201005

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: TRACY HUI and JOJO HUI (Personally and Representing the interests of The Enforcement Committee of the Debenture Holders), Plaintiffs

AND:

CIM INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC., BAYVIEW CREEK (CIM) LP, CIM BAYVIEW CREEK INC., JIUBIN FENG (a.k.a. JERRY FENG), ZHANG DIAN YUAN, DAN FUOCO, ROBERT PARENT, MEHDI SHAFIEI, CIM MACKENZIE CREEK INC., CIM MACKENZIE CREEK LP, GRAVITAS SECURITIES INC. and AMANDA ZHAO, Defendants

BEFORE: Paul B. Schabas

COUNSEL: Jonathan Barr and Amiri Dear, for the Plaintiffs Ronald Lachmansingh and Katherine Lee, for the Defendant Bayview Creek (CIM) LP Lawrence Hansen for Duca Financial Services Credit Union Ltd. Robert Choi, for Bryton Capital Corp.

HEARD: September 28, 2020

ENDORSEMENT

[1] I released an endorsement in this matter on September 28, 2020: Hui v. CIM International Group Inc., 2020 ONSC 5857. Unfortunately, the parties cannot agree on the terms of the formal order, and I have been forwarded competing versions together with email exchanges between counsel setting out their positions.

[2] First, in the preamble, the defendant Bayview Creek (CIM) LP objects to including reference to my having read the Investigative Receiver’s Interim Report. As I read it, it should be referred to in the Order.

[3] Second, Bayview Creek’s counsel wishes to add to the preamble the following words after “no other parties appearing”: “and the Plaintiffs’ counsel having undertaken to have Tracy Hui, a resident of Ontario, give an undertaking as to damages.” This issue was discussed in my endorsement as it arose during the hearing respecting the issue of security for costs, but I specifically made no order regarding it. I do not recall a specific commitment being given for an undertaking by Tracy Hui, although the potential need for one was recognized by counsel for the plaintiffs. Accordingly, I will not add that phrase to the Order.

[4] Third, I have made some minor changes to paragraph 2 of the Order as suggested by counsel for Bayview Creek.

[5] Fourth, the plaintiff seeks to have the Order contain a third paragraph stating: “THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS that Bayview LP’s motion to set aside the Order of September 18, 2020 for a lack of full and fair disclosure is dismissed.” This accurately reflects my endorsement. Presumably the plaintiffs want this in the Order to ensure that the lack of full and fair disclosure is not raised by Bayview Creek again. I would have thought my endorsement dismissing that basis for setting aside the ex parte Order was sufficient for that purpose; indeed, it includes the fact that I addressed the issue at the request of Bayview Creek. However, as the paragraph is accurate and may prevent misunderstanding going forward, I have included the proposed paragraph 3 in the Order.

[6] I have signed the Order in accordance with this endorsement.

Paul B. Schabas, J.

Date: October 5, 2020