Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: 2504670 ONTARIO INC., Plaintiff
AND:
SUSING SEAFOOD WHOLESALE LTD., RUI HUA HUANG and JING HUI HAN, Defendants
BEFORE: John Callaghan J.
COUNSEL: Leon Li and Queenie Cheung, for the Plaintiff
No one appearing for the Defendants
HEARD: In writing
Endorsement
1The issues on this motion are:
(a) whether two actions should be heard at the same time or one immediately after the other in Toronto pursuant to Rule 6.01;
(b) whether service of the Statements of Claim on Huang via WeChat on July 26, 2025 should be validated pursuant to Rule 16.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure)); and
(c) whether, if necessary, the time for service of the Statements of Claim should be extended to July 25, 2026 pursuant to Rule 3.02(1).
2The plaintiff owns two commercial units which adjoin each other, being units 101 and 102, 390 Silver Star Boulevard, Scarborough, Ontario. The units were leased to two separate corporate defendants which are controlled by the same person.
3The two actions, CV-25-00748263-0000 and CV-25-00748261-0000, arise out of the same series of transactions involving the two adjacent commercial units and were leased to two corporate tenants controlled by the same individual defendants. As such, there is a mutuality of controlling parties in the actions. In addition, as set out in the factum and affidavit of the plaintiff, I am satisfied that the two actions involve common questions of law and fact. The two matters should be heard together to promote efficiency and avoid the risk of inconsistent findings. Accordingly, the actions shall be tried together or one after the other as the trial judge deems appropriate.
4The plaintiff seeks to validated service on the defendant, Rui Hua Huang who is also an indemnifier of the leases. Huang, no longer lives at the last known address that was available to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s property manager was in regular contact with Huang. Huang communicated with the property manager by WeChat. On the day after issuing the claims, the property manager again communicated with Huang through WeChat. Huang responded to the property manager via WeChat. The property manager then forwarded the two issued statements of claim through WeChat approximately 40 minutes later. The plaintiff says that the statement of claims would therefore have come to the attention of Huang.
5Where there is an alternate means of bringing an action to the attention of a defendant, this Court may validate service: Rule 16.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Service may be validated where there is reasonable likelihood the claim came to the attention of the defendant as a result of electronic mediums such as WeChat: Xue v. Zheng, 2018 ONSC 1979, at para. 32; K.H. v. M.L., 2017 ONCJ 376, at para. 17.
6Huang was responding to the property manger on his WeChat just 40 minutes before the statements of claim were forwarded to him. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the statements of claim came to Huang’s attention. Accordingly, service is validated under rule 16.08.
7The claims were issued on July 25, 2025. This motion was filed prior to the expiry of the six months for service of the claims. The plaintiff requests that, if necessary, I grant an order extending the time for service. As I have validated the service that took place July 26, 2025, I see no need for an order under rule 14.08(1). However, if such an order were required, I would grant the order as there is no prejudice to Huang who has notice of the action.
8As no order under rule 48,01 is required, the following will issue:
(a) an Order validating service of the Statements of Claim on the Defendant, Rui Hua Huang, via WeChat on July 26, 2025, or such further or other date as this Honourable Court may deem just; and
(b) an Order that the Toronto Action bearing Court File Number CV-25-00748261-0000 and the Toronto Action bearing Court File Number CV-25-00748263-0000 be heard at the same time or one immediately after the other in Toronto.
Callaghan J.
Date: April 16, 2026