Xtreme Security Inc. v. 1000021114 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONSC 1417

(Rule 59.02(2)(c)(i))

BEFORE:

Justice/Associate Justice

Court File Number:

Associate Justice D. Michael Brown

CV-24-00730958-0000

Title of Proceeding:

XTREME SECURITY INC.

Applicant(s)/ Plaintiff(s)

-v-

1000021114 ONTARIO INC., DBA Corporate Protection & Investigative Services

Respondent(s)/Defendant(s)

Case Management:

☐ Yes

If so, by whom:

☐ No

Participants and Non-Participants:(Rule 59.02(2)((vii))

Party

Counsel

E-mail Address

Phone #

Participant (Y/N)

Plaintiff

Xtreme Security Inc.

Jeanette Saliba

jsaliba@agmlawyers.com

416-360-8767

Defendant(s)

1000021114 Ontario Inc., DBA Corporate Protection & Investigative Services

Counsel/Self-Represented Party did not attend

N/A

Date Heard: (Rule 59.02(2)(c)(iii))

02/27/2026

Nature of Hearing (mark with an “X”): (Rule 59.02(2)(c)(iv))

Motion

Appeal

Case Conference

Pre-Trial Conference

Application

Format of Hearing (mark with an “X”): (Rule 59.02(2)(c)(iv))

In Writing

Telephone

Videoconference

In Person

If in person, indicate courthouse address:

Relief Requested: (Rule. 59.02(2)(c)(v))

See Reasons

Disposition made at hearing or conference (operative terms ordered): (Rule 59.02(2)(c)(vi))

See Reasons

Costs: On a

N/A

indemnity basis, fixed at $

are payable

[when]

Brief Reasons, if any: (Rule 59.02(2)(b))

1The plaintiff brings this motion seeking to compel Nakone (Ken) Vongkham, an officer and director of the corporate defendant/judgment debtor, 1000021114 Ontario Inc. dba Corporate Protection & Investigative Services (CPIS), to attend an examination in aid of execution. The plaintiff further seeks to validate service of three notices of examination sent to the defendant as well as costs thrown away as result of Mr. Vongkham’s failed attendance at three attempted examinations in aid of execution. The plaintiff also seeks an order for substituted service of the notices of examination going forward. Finally, the plaintiff seeks an order compelling the defendant to produce documents identified in the notice of examination at least 7 days in advance of the examination. The motion record for this motion was served on the defendant, but the defendant has not responded to this motion and no one appears for the defendant today.

Validation of service

2Per Rule 60.18(7) a notice of examination in aid of execution must be served personally or by an alternative to personal service. A corporation can only be orally examined through an individual representative. Where the judgment debtor is a corporation, a director or officer of the corporation may be examined in aid of execution. The service required by Rule 60.18(7) is service on the individual representative to be examined. In the case of a corporation, the director or officer to be examined must be served personally or by alternative to personal service. Personal service or alternative to personal service on the corporation is not sufficient to compel the attendance of the officer or director at the examination.

3The plaintiff seeks to validate service of the notices of examination on the corporate defendant, CPIS. Such validation serves no purpose as service on CPIS is not sufficient service on Mr. Vongkham of the notice of examination. For the notices of examination for the examinations on July 10, 2025 and July 29, 2025, the plaintiff focussed on serving the corporation. There was no attempt at personal service on Mr. Vongkham, even though Mr. Vongkham was the person named to be examined in the notice of examination. I am not prepared to validate service on Mr. Vongkham of those notices of examination.

4The plaintiff did not attempt personal service on Mr. Vongkham until February 11, 2026 when it attempted service of the notice of examination for the examination to take place on February 17, 2026. On February 11, 2026, the plaintiff’s process server attended at Mr. Vongkham residence on Lisgar Street in Toronto. It is clear that Mr. Vongkham was at home at the time. He was overheard on the phone to the concierge of the building telling them he was not going to accept service of any documents. He refused to come to the lobby to receive the documents himself and refused to permit the process server to come to his unit to serve the documents.

5I find that Mr. Vongkham was actively evading service on the February 11, 2026. I also find that the notice of examination came to Mr. Vongkham’s attention that day when it was left for Mr. Vongkham at the reception desk with the concierge, with a further copy left at the door of his unit. I therefore validate service of the notice of examination on Mr. Vongkham on February 11, 2026.

Substituted Service

6I am satisfied on the record before me that the plaintiff has made reasonable efforts to personally serve Mr. Vongkham and that such service has proved impractical, particularly in light of Mr. Vongkham’s efforts to evade service. I am also satisfied that the proposed method of substituted service – by regular mail to the Lisgar Street address and the current address of CPIS and by email to Mr. Vongkham and his associate – will bring any future documents so served to the attention of the defendant and Mr. Vongkham. The requested order for substituted service is granted. This order will apply to service of all future documents on CPIS and Mr. Vongkham in this action.

Document Production

7The plaintiff also seeks an order for the production of documents from the defendant in advance of the examination. Although the pre-examination production of documents would make for a more efficient examination process, I raised a concern with counsel for the plaintiff that neither Rule 60.18 nor Rule 34.10(2) appear to contemplate an order for pre-examination document production. Rule 34.10(2) provides for the production of documents at the examination, not before. In response to my concern, plaintiff’s counsel pointed to the decision in The Bingo Connection v. Ryckman, 2021 ONSC 2335. In that case, Justice Kurz ordered a defendant/judgment debtor to deliver all documents identified in the notice of examination at least 30 days before the examination in aid of execution together with a written statement setting out what documents were not available and the steps taken to secure such documents; The Bingo Connection, at para. 15.

8The draft order for document production provided of the plaintiff mirrors the language in Justice Kurz’s order. While such an order is not specifically contemplated by Rule 60.18 or Rule 34.10, I find that it would promote the most expeditious and least expensive determination of the issues in this enforcement proceeding in accordance with Rule 1.04. The plaintiff’s request for an order for pre-examination document production is granted.

Costs

9The plaintiff has already incurred significant costs tracking down CPIS and Mr. Vongkham and attempting to conduct an examination in aid of execution. The costs have increased as a result of the defendant’s efforts to evade service and enforcement of the debt against it. The plaintiff has delivered a costs outline that calculates its partial indemnity costs of its attempts at service and examinations in aid of execution plus its costs of this motion at $37,351.10. The plaintiff seeks $25,000 in costs today. While I find this to be a reasonable request based on the work that was done, I would not award costs of attendance at the first two examinations of aid in execution given the failure to properly serve Mr. Vongkham with the notices of examination for those examinations. I would therefore reduce the costs by a further $5,000 and award costs of the motion and costs associated with service attempts and the examinations in aid of execution in the total amount of $20,000, to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, which I find to be within the reasonable expectations of the parties.

10Order to go as electronically amended and signed by me.

Additional pages attached:

Yes

February 27

2026

Date of Endorsement (Rule 59.02(2)(c)(ii))

Signature of Judge/Associate Judge (Rule 59.02(2)(c)(i))

Associate Justice Brown