Key Facts:

• Background:

  • In 2022, Wei was introduced to an investment opportunity by Xie, who claimed Ye-Hang Canada was the exclusive Canadian agent for EHang Holdings, a drone manufacturer.
  • Wei mortgaged her home and advanced $710,539, including a $700,000 loan acknowledged by Xie, with a promise to repay within six months at 30% interest.
  • Wei later discovered EHang Holdings had no agent in Canada, contradicting Xie’s claims.

Court Findings:

1. Fraudulent Representations:

   • Xie’s misrepresentation about the agency relationship and lack of evidence for the use of funds or drone orders constituted fraud.

2. Summary Judgment Test:

   • The court ruled no genuine issue required a trial under Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Xie failed to provide sufficient evidence to contest the motion.

3. Defenses Dismissed:

   • Xie’s claims that repayment depended on drone sales were inconsistent with the loan agreement.
   • The defense of non est factum (claiming the contract was not understood) failed due to Xie’s carelessness in signing.

4. Corporate Veil Pierced:

   • The court found Ye-Hang Canada and Aero Future Canada were used by Xie for fraudulent purposes, justifying liability against them.

5. Counterclaim Dismissed:

   • Xie’s counterclaim for defamation was unsupported by evidence.

Judgment and Costs:

• Award: $700,000 plus 30% prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.
• Costs: $14,635.78 awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.