Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: CV-24-00725653-0000
Date: 2025-05-05

Between

Shizhong Liu, 1000479313 Ontario Inc., Shizhong Holdings Inc., and Liu Family Trust by its Trustee Shizhong Liu
Applicants

– and –

Yunshen Xing, Naiyu Chai, CRR Capital Inc., Meadowlily Development Inc., CRR Foxwood Inc., Cornerstone Real Estate Investment Limited Partnership, CRR Foxwood Exeter Inc., Cornerstone Exeter Limited Partnership, and Foxwood Developments (London) Inc.
Respondents

Applicant Counsel: Rebecca Huang
Respondent Counsel: Peter Wardle and Evan Rankin
Heard: In writing
Judge: Julie A. Papageorgiou

Costs Endorsement

Overview

[1] This dispute concerns $16 million advanced by the Applicants to the Respondents, Naiyu Chai (“Mike”) and Yunshen Xing (“Oliver”), and the characterization of such advances. The Applicants say that the parties agreed that the development properties purchased with these funds would stand as security.

[2] I granted an interlocutory proprietary injunction over the properties in question.

[3] The plaintiffs seek costs in the amount of $130,000 and disbursements in the amount of $9,223.71.

[4] The Respondents raise many arguments about why the quantum is too high but their main argument is that costs should be awarded in the cause.

[5] They reference Justice Sharpe in Injunctions and Specific Performance where he says:

[I]t would be unusual to award costs of an interlocutory injunction motion to the successful plaintiff prior to trial. As there has been no final determination of the rights of the parties, but rather an order to protect the plaintiff's position pending trial, the preferable course is to reserve the question of costs to the trial judge.

[6] In *Quizno’s Canada Restaurant Corp. v. 1450987 Ontario Corp.*, at para 10, Perell J. observed that an order of costs in the cause in interlocutory injunctions “allows the court to have the benefit of hindsight and to avoid the possible injustice of awarding costs to a plaintiff for having succeeded in obtaining an order to protect his or her position pending trial when the outcome of the trial reveals that the plaintiff’s position was not worthy of having been protected.”

[7] In *TDL Group Ltd. v. 1060284 Ontario Ltd.*, at para 41, Nordheimer J. held that costs in the cause are appropriate since “a considerable portion of the costs associated with the injunction motion will benefit the parties in terms of the overall proceeding.”

[8] Given that I have expedited the hearing of the Application, and in view of the case law cited above, costs shall be in the cause.

Julie A. Papageorgiou
Released: May 5, 2025