Li v. Liu
Zhen Li
Law Firm / Organization
Forrester & Company Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Glen Forrester

Xiaohong Liu
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

D. Chen

Law Firm / Organization
Avid Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Darryl Way

Zhongping Xu
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

D. Chen

Law Firm / Organization
Avid Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Darryl Way

Garibaldi Springs Water Company Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

D. Chen

Law Firm / Organization
Avid Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Darryl Way

Canada Sparkle Long Holdings Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

D. Chen

Law Firm / Organization
Avid Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Darryl Way

1205816 B.C. Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

D. Chen

Law Firm / Organization
Avid Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Darryl Way

Hong Guo
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

D. Chen

Law Firm / Organization
Avid Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Darryl Way

Guo Law Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

D. Chen

Law Firm / Organization
Avid Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Darryl Way

Xu Chen
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

D. Chen

Law Firm / Organization
Avid Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Darryl Way

Maple Union Industry Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

D. Chen

Law Firm / Organization
Avid Law Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Darryl Way

  • Facts: Zhen Li provided $7.5 million for the purchase of shares in Garibaldi Springs Water Company Ltd., intending the shares to be purchased through a company controlled by him. Instead, the defendant registered the company (816) in his name and under his sole control, with the shares ultimately transferred to 816.

  • Issue: The main legal issue revolves around the transfer of shares from 816 to Li, where 816 holds the shares in bare trust for Li. The obligation of a bare trustee to return trust property on demand is a key point of contention.

  • Court’s Ruling: The court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, Li, having control of the shares at this point. The court made an order that $1.5 million would remain in the company, with any amount above $1.5 million up to $7.5 million total to be transferred or given to Li. Other proceeds from the sale or transfer would remain under the preservation order until further court order. The court emphasized the necessity of reliable management for Garibaldi to address licensing issues and ensure its continuing viability.

  • Costs/Damages: The court decided that given the mixed success on this application, each party would bear their own costs.

Supreme Court of British Columbia
S215077
Corporate & commercial law
Plaintiff