ENDORSEMENT REGARDING MINI TRIAL TO BE HELD

[1] The Plaintiff, Yan Fang says that she entered into a partnership with the defendant Hui Jun Yin to acquire and develop certain real estate located at 2652 Victoria Park Avenue (the “Property”). She says that as agreed, she contributed 50 % to the purchase price and development costs of the Property and thus has a 50 % beneficial interest in this Property. Ms. Fang also claims that Mr. Hui Jun Yin placed mortgages on this property in breach of their agreement. The Property has been renovated and she has been living at the Property with her nine year old son since June, 2019.

[2] The defendant, Mr. Yin, is currently the only registered owner of the Property. Mr. Yin says that he and Ms. Fang were never partners. Mr. Yin does not dispute that Ms. Fang provided him some funds but takes the position that any funds she provided were loans and did not create any property interest. As well, he disputes the quantum of funds which Ms. Yin says she contributed and argues that an accounting is required.

[3] Both Mr. Yin and Ms. Fang currently live at the Property in what can only be described as a very difficult situation. Mr. Yin has been trying to evict Ms. Fang from the Property on the basis that she is only a tenant and has failed to pay rent. There have been numerous interventions by the police and cross allegations of abusive conduct.

[4] Ms. Fang has sought summary judgment on her claim. She seeks a declaration that the parties entered into a partnership agreement and that she has a 50 % beneficial ownership interest in the Property or damages.

[5] She also seeks a permanent injunction enjoining Mr. Yin from interfering with her use and enjoyment of the Property on the basis of the repeated assaults she alleges. Mr. Yin disputes these assaults and says that they are false allegations. He says that Ms. Yin has phoned the police reporting assault as a means of badgering and intimidating him into giving in to her demands.

[6] The issue of whether Mr. Yin has assaulted Ms. Fang, or whether she has made false complaints to the police, is a credibility issue.

[7] Rule 20 provides as follows:

Powers

(2.1) In determining under clause (2) (a) whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial, the court shall consider the evidence submitted by the parties and, if the determination is being made by a judge, the judge may exercise any of the following powers for the purpose, unless it is in the interest of justice for such powers to be exercised only at a trial:

Weighing the evidence.
Evaluating the credibility of a deponent.
Drawing any reasonable inference from the evidence. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 13 (3).

Rule Oral Evidence (Mini-Trial)

(2.2) A judge may, for the purposes of exercising any of the powers set out in subrule (2.1), order that oral evidence be presented by one or more parties, with or without time limits on its presentation. O. Reg. 438/08, s. 13 (3).

[8] I am directing that a mini trial take place with respect to the issue of whether Mr. Yin has assaulted Ms. Fang or whether she has made false reports to the police to intimidate Mr. Yin. I am satisfied that this should take no more than one day and that the only parties who need testify are Ms. Fang and Mr. Yin.

[9] I am directing the parties to provide my assistant with dates when they are available for this minitrial during the weeks of December 4, 2023, December 11, 2023, January 1, January 8 or January 15, 2024.

[10] If the parties require, they may arrange a case conference before me.

Papageorgiou J.

Released: November 24, 2023

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

YAN FANG

Plaintiff/Defendant to the Counterclaim

– and –

HUI JUN YIN

Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Papageorgiou J.

Released: November 24, 2023

Fang v. Yin, 2023 ONSC 6677

Case Summary

ENDORSEMENT REGARDING MINI TRIAL TO BE HELD

Powers

Rule Oral Evidence (Mini-Trial)

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues