Axion Ventures Inc. v. Bonner
Axion Ventures Inc.
Axion Interactive Inc.
John Todd Bonner
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Nithinan Boonyawattanapisut
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Monaker Group, Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
William Kerby
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Cern One Limited
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Red Anchor Trading Corp.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
CC Asia Pacific Ventures Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Jonathan Chen
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
HotPlay Enterprise Limited
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
HotPlay (Thailand) Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Christopher Bagguley
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Mark Henry Saft
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Longroot, Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
Jane Doe
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented
ABC Corp.
Law Firm / Organization
Unrepresented

Background Facts:
This case arose from a business dispute involving Axion Ventures Inc. and Axion Interactive Inc. (the plaintiffs) against John Todd Bonner, Nithinan Boonyawattanapisut, and several other defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants conspired to take control of Axion or misappropriate valuable assets, particularly an "In-Game Advertising" (IGA) technology. The defendants countered that they were improperly denied access to company records, specifically emails and financial documents stored in Axion’s Google Suite. They claimed that this data was deliberately destroyed to obstruct their defense and to prevent them from proving a related claim concerning loans made by Bonner and his family to Axion.

Legal Issues:
The key legal issue was spoliation of evidence—whether Axion intentionally deleted or failed to preserve relevant electronic documents. The defendants sought dismissal of the case on the grounds that missing evidence prevented them from fairly defending themselves.

Court's Determination:
The court found that there was conflicting evidence regarding who was responsible for the loss of data. Given the factual disputes, the judge ruled that spoliation should be determined at trial rather than granting a pre-trial dismissal.

Final Award and Costs:
No monetary award or cost determination was made at this stage. The issue of spoliation and any potential remedies were deferred to trial.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
S210438
Corporate & commercial law