SUPREME COURT

 

 

-
N0. Vancouver Registry
i In t/ae Supmme Com Columbia
Between in? 
LU, AIHONG CAI and ZHEN YE
Plaintiffs
and:

HANGZHOU AMCAN IMMIGRATION SERVICE LTD.,
AMCAN GLOBAL CONSULTING LTD., CANADA GATE
CONSULTING INC., GANG HONG also known as EDWARD
HONG, WEN JUN MENG also known as KELLY MENG,
SEIKO HUANG, CHEN also known as JULIE CHEN,
MULTI-WELL DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT CO. LTD.,
H.S.H. HOLDINGS LTD., H.S.H. HOTEL LTD., and H.S.H.
MANAGEMENT LTD.

Defendants

NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM
This action has been started by the Plaintiffs for the relief set out in Part 2 below.
If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must

?le a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this
court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and

serve a copy of the ?led response to civil claim on the Plaintiff.
If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must

?le a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the
above?named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim
described below, and

serve a copy of the ?led response to civil claim and counterclaim on the
Plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim.

JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to ?le the response to
civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below.

BSDECIS 1527319 RISS 200.00
21422 31510159

28167291

 

 

 

 

Time for response to civil claim
A response to civil claim must be ?led and served on the Plaintiffs,

if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within
21 days after that service, -

if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United States
of America, within 35 days after that service,

if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days
after that service, or

if the time for response to notice of civil claim has been set by order of the

court, within that time.

CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF
Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS
Parties

1. The Plaintiff, Xiaohong Lu is a resident of China with an address for service c/o
Whitelaw Twining, #2400 200 Granville Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.

2. The Plaintiff, Aihong Cai Cai?), is a resident of China with an address for service c/o
Whitelaw Twining, #2400 - 200 Granville Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.

3. The Plaintiff, Zhen Ye is a resident of China with an address for service c/o
Whitelaw Twining, #2400 200 Granville Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.

4. The Defendant, Hangzhou Amcan Immigration Service Ltd. (?Hangzhou?), is a company
incorporated pursuant to the laws of China with a business address located at Room 1106 East
Building, Yong Tong Information Plaza, No. 141, Huangchen Bei Road, Hangzhou, China.

5. The Defendant, Amcan Global Consulting Ltd. (?Amcan?), is a company incorporated
pursuant to the laws of British Columbia having its registered and records of?ce located at
c/o Janette Liu Consulting Inc., #1100 1200 West 73rd Avenue, Vancouver, British
Columbia.

6. The Defendant, Canada Gate Consulting Inc. (?Canada Gate?), is a company incorporated
pursuant to the laws of British Columbia having its registered and records of?ce located at
5463 Larch Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.

7. The Defendant, Gang Hong also known as Edward Hong Hong?), is an individual
who resides at 5463 Larch Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.

28167291

 

 

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

-3-

The Defendant, Wen Jun Meng also known as Kelly Meng Meng?), is an individual
who resides at 5463 Larch Street, Vancouver, British Columbia.

At all material times, Mr. Hong and Ms. Meng were or otherwise represented themselves to
be the owners, principals, of?cers, directors, representatives and/ or agents of Hangzhou,
Amcan and Canada Gate (collectively referred to as the ?Immigration Companies?).

The Defendant, Multi?Well Development Investment Co. Ltd. is a
company incorporated pursuant to the laws of British Columbia having its registered and
records of?ce located at #728 - 650 West 41st Avenue, North Tower, Oakridge Mall,
Vancouver, British Columbia.

The Defendant, H.S.H Holdings Ltd. Holdings?), is a company incorporated
pursuant to the laws of British Columbia having its registered and records of?ce located at
#728 650 West 41st Avenue, North Tower, Oakridge Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia.

The Defendant, H.S.H. Hotel Ltd. Hotel?), is a company incorporated pursuant to
the laws of British Columbia having its registered and records of?ce located at #728 650
West 41st Avenue, North Tower, Oakridge Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia.

The Defendant, H.S.H. Management Ltd. Management?), is a company
incorporated pursuant to the laws of British Columbia having its registered and records of?ce
located at #728 650 West 41st Avenue, North Tower, Oakridge Mall, Vancouver, British
Columbia.

The Defendant, Seiko Huang Huang?), is an individual who resides 21778 River Road,
Maple Ridge, British Columbia.

The Defendant, Hui-Chu Chen also known as Julie Chen Chen?), is an individual who
resides at 21778 River Road, Maple Ridge, British Columbia.

At all material times, Mr. Huang and Ms. Chen were the owners, principals, of?cers, and/ or
directors of Multi-Well, HSH Holdings, HSH Hotel and HSH Management (collectively
referred to as the ?Development Companies?).

The Consultant Contract

17.

18.

19.

In or around November 2012, the Plaintiffs met or were otherwise introduced to Mr. Hong
and Ms. Meng, both of whom represented to the Plaintiffs that they could assist the Plaintiffs
in immigrating to Canada through the Immigration Companies.

At all material times, the Plaintiffs reposed trust in Mr. Hong and Ms. Meng as they
represented having knowledge of immigration practices and opportunities in Canada. As a
result, the Plaintiffs, who were at all times Chinese citizens, were subject to a peculiar
vulnerability to the representations and recommendations made by Mr. Hong and Ms. Meng.

In reliance on the representations made by Mr. Hong and Ms. Meng, the Plaintiffs entered

into a written or oral agreement with Hangzhou or, alternatively, with the Immigration
Companies whereby Hangzhou, the Immigration Companies, Mr. Hong and Ms. Meng, or

2816729.1

 

 

 

 

20.

21.

22.

23.

4 -
any combination of them, agreed to assist the Plaintiffs in immigrating into Canada (the
?Consultant Contract?).

Pursuant to the Consultant Contract, Hangzhou, the Immigration Companies, Mr. Hong and
Ms. Meng, or any combination of them, agreed to:

research immigration opportunities for the Plaintiffs and make recommendations
concerning same;

instruct and assist the Plaintiffs in relation to her immigration application;
submit the Plaintiffs? immigration application; and

prepare the Plaintiffs for relocation to Canada after their immigration applications
were approved.

It was an implied term of the Consultant Contract that Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and the
Immigration Companies would act in the best interests of the Plaintiffs.

In exchange, the Plaintiffs agreed to pay the Immigration Companies the sum of RMB 800,000
each (the ?Immigration Payment?).

It was further a term of the Consultant Contract that in the event the Plaintiffs? immigration
application was not approved, then the Immigration Companies would refund to the Plaintiffs
70% of the Immigration Payment, or RMB 560,000 each.

The Investment

24.

25.

26.

In or around early 2013, Mr. Hong and Ms. Meng introduced the Plaintiffs to Mr. Huang and
Ms. Chen for the purposes of a potential investment by the Plaintiffs in a Holiday Inn
development (the ?Hotel Project?) that was being undertaken by the Development
Companies.

At all material times, Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and the Immigration Companies entered into an
agreement or joint plan with Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and the Development Companies whereby:

Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and the Immigration Companies would make false, misleading
or otherwise inaccurate representations to the Plaintiffs with the intention to induce

an investment from them into the Hotel Project; and

the Defendants would then use Plaintiffs? investment for purposes unrelated to the
Hotel Project.

During various conversations with the Plaintiffs, Mr. Hong and Ms. Meng represented that:

the Hotel Project would be a vehicle for the Plaintiffs? immigration applications into
Canada;

they investigated and performed due diligence on the Hotel Project;

2816729.l

 

 

 

27.

5 

the Hotel Project was a good investment as Mr. Huang had a good relationship with
the City of Maple Ridge of?cials;

the Hotel Project was close to receiving permits;

the Hotel Project required initial ?nancing from investors and that the Royal Bank of
Canada would provide additional ?nancing for the Hotel Project;

the larger the investment made by the Plaintiffs, the quicker their applications would I
be processed;

the Plaintiffs? investments would be safe;

if the Plaintiffs? immigration applications were denied, then the Plaintiffs? investments
would be returned; and

if the Plaintiffs did not make a quick decision on an investment in the Hotel Project,
then they would lose out on the opportunity.

(the ?Hong Representations?)
In addition, Mr. Huang and Ms. Chen represented to the Plaintiffs that:
he could guarantee the Plaintiffs? immigration into Canada;

the Hotel Project would be a vehicle for the Plaintiffs? immigration applications into
Canada;

he had a good relationship with the City of Maple Ridge of?cials;
the Hotel Project was close to receiving permits;

the Hotel Project required initial ?nancing from investors and that the Royal Bank of
Canada would provide additional ?nancing for the Hotel Project;

the Plaintiffs? investments would be safe;

if the Plaintiffs? immigration applications were denied, then the Plaintiffs would be
entitled to the return of their investment;

(11) if the Plaintiffs did not make a quick decision on an investment in the Hotel Project,
then they would lose out on the opportunity; and

the Plaintiffs and other investors from China (the ?Other Investors?) would be
investing a total of $7,000,000.00 into the Hotel Project and that Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen
and/ or Multi?Well would invest a total of $5,000,000.00 into the Hotel Project

(the ?Huang Representations?)

2816729.1

 

 

 

28reliance on the Hong Representations and the Huang Representations, the Plaintiffs, on
the advice of Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and the Immigration Companies, or any combination of
them, agreed to invest the sum of CDN $1,000,000.00 each (or $3,000,000.00 total) in the
Hotel Project (the ?Investments?).

The Hong Representations and the Huang Representations were false, inaccurate, or otherwise
misleading, which the Defendants knew or ought to have known, in that:

none of Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng or the Immigration Companies performed due diligence
on the Hotel Project;

Mr. Huang could not guarantee the Plaintiffs? immigration into Canada;

the Hotel Project was not close to being approved for development permits by the
City of Maple Ridge;

the Royal Bank of Canada was not prepared to provide additional ?nancing for the
Hotel Project;

Mr. Huan Ms. Chen and the Develo ment Com anies had no intentions of investin

$5,000,000.00 into the Hotel Project; and

Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and the Development Companies intended to use the
Investment for purposes unrelated to the Hotel Project.

On or about March 11, 2013, Ms. Meng delivered a Letter of Intent to Plaintiffs, which was
prepared and signed by Mr. Huang on behalf of Multi-Well (the ?Original Agreement? 

Ms. Meng represented to the Plaintiffs that this was a legal document necessary to protect the
Investments and, in reliance on this representation, the Plaintiffs executed the Original
Agreement.

The material terms of the Original Agreement were:

Multi-Well and the investors in the Hotel Project would incorporate a new company,
HSH Hotel for the purposes of the Hotel Project;

Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and/ or the Development Companies would invest the sum of
$5,000,000.00 into the Hotel Project;

the Plaintiffs were to receive 8.33% each of the shares in HSH Hotel, as a result of the
Investments;

the Investments were to be used exclusively for the Hotel Project;

the Plaintiffs were to transfer $500,000.00 each within two weeks of executing the
Original Agreement and the remaining $500,000.00 each within one month; and

28167291

 

33the Plaintiffs? immigration applications were rejected by the BC Provincial Nominee
program, then the Investtnents would be returned to them.

On March 20, 2013, HSH Hotel was incorporated as the corporate entity responsible for the
Hotel Project.

In or around late March 2013 or early April 2013, Ms. Ye and Ms. Lu each transferred
$1,000,000.00 to the account of Canada Gate at TD Canada Trust.

Mr. Cai transferred the following amounts to the account of Canada Gate at TD Canada Trust:
$500,000.00 on or about April 10, 2013; and
$500,050.00 on or about May 6, 2013;

At all material times, the Defendants knew or ought to have known that the Investments were
being transferred on the express condition that all funds invested would be returned if the
Plaintiffs? immigration applications were denied.

Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and/ or the Immigration Companies transferred the Investments to HSH
Hotel by way of separate payments in April 2013 and June 2013, respectively.

On or about April 30, 2013, Ms. Meng delivered a Shareholders? Agreement prepared in the
English language to the Plaintiffs for their execution (the ?Shareholders? Agreement?). The
Plaintiffs requested that the Shareholders? Agreement be translated; however, Ms. Meng
refused to do so and represented to the Plaintiffs that:

she arranged for another lawyer to review the Shareholders? Agreement;
the Shareholders? Agreement protected the Investments; and

execution of the Shareholders? Agreement was a mere Canadian formality.
These representations were false, inaccurate or otherwise misleading.

In reliance on the Original Agreement and Ms. Meng?s representations and her advice, the
Plaintiffs executed the Shareholders? Agreement.

At no material time did the Plaintiffs receive any consideration for their execution of the
Shareholders? Agreement.

The Shareholders? Agreement listed the share ownership in HSH Hotel as follows:

 

 

 

Name Class A Voting Par Value of Preferred Par Value of
Shares Class A Voting Shares Preferred
Shares Shares
HSH Holdings 500 $1.00 50,000 Class $0.01

 

 

 

 

 

 

28} 6729. 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lixin Liu 200 $1.00 20,000 Class $100.00
Junli Zhang 200 $1.00 20,000 Class $100.00

Zhen Ye 100 $1.00 10,000 Class $100.00 if
Aihong Cai 100 $1.00 10,000 Class $100.00 
Ms. Lu 100 $1.00 10,000 Class $100.00 

 

 

42. Pursuant to the Shareholders Agreement, HSH Holdings was to make an initial investment of
$5,000,000.00 into HSH Hotel and the Hotel Project.

43. In breach of the Original Agreement or, alternatively, the Shareholders? Agreement, or both
of them, at no material time did HSH Holdings, Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen or any of the
Development Companies make an investment of $5,000,000.00 into HSH Hotel or the Hotel
Project.

Improper or Unauthorized Use of Investment Funds

44. On or about August 28, 2013, without the knowledge of or approval by the Plaintiffs or the
Other Investors, Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and/ or all or some of the Development Companies
purported to make a $5,000,000.00 investment into HSH Hotel by transferring various lands
owned by Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and or some or all of the Development Companies to HSH
Hotel.

45. On or about December 12, 2013, these lands were consolidated under the following legal
description:

PID: 029?152-861

Legal Description: Lot 1 District Lot 398 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan
EPP34022 Except Part in Plan EPP34066

(the ?Lands?)

46. At no material time did the Lands have a value of $5,000,000.00, of which Mr. Huang, Ms.
Chen and the Development Companies were aware.

 

47. Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and/ or some or all of the Development Companies wrongfully caused
HSH Hotel to transfer at least $2,100,000.00 of the funds invested by the Plaintiffs and the
Other Investors to HSH Holdings, which payment was purported by Mr. Huang and Ms.
Chen to represent the purchase price for the Lands.

48. Further, or in the alternative, Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and/ or some or all of the Development

Companies wrongfully caused HSH Hotel to make unauthorized or improper transfers of the
funds invested the Plaintiffs and the Other Investors for wrongful or otherwise improper

28167291

 

 

9 
purposes unrelated to the Hotel Project to Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and/ or some or all of the
Development Companies as follows:

$1,400,000.00 on April 29, 2013;
$9,345.00 on May 23, 2013

$1,500,000.00 on June 17, 2013;
$100,000.00 on July 15, 2013;

$165,314.40 on August 15, 2013

$2,100,000.00 on August 18, 2013;

 

$105,754.00 on October 8, 2013;

$586,173.00 on October 8, 2013;

$101,104.50 on October 8, 2013;

 $5,000.00 on November 30, 2013;

$100,000.00 on February 6, 2014; and

(1) such further and other times as the Plaintiffs may discover.
(the ?Wrongful Payments?)

49. As a result of the Wrongful Payments, Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and/ or some or all of the
Development Companies have depleted the Investments and the funds from the Other
Investors for purposes unrelated to the Hotel Project.

Immigration Application Denial 
50. On or about December 11, 2013, the Plaintiffs? immigration applications were denied.

51. The Plaintiffs demanded the return of the Investments from Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng, the
Immigration Companies, Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and the Development Companies, all of
whom have refused, neglected or otherwise failed to pay same.

52. The Plaintiffs further demanded the return of 560,000 RMB from Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and
the Immigration Companies, all of whom have refused, neglected or otherwise failed to pay
same.

 

Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT

 

1. The Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants as follows:

28167291

 

 

 

-10-

judgment against Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng, the Immigration Companies, Mr. Huang, Ms.
Chen and the Development Companies, jointly and severally, in debt in the amount
of $3,000,000.00;

judgment against Mr. Hong and Ms. Meng and the Immigration Companies, jointly
and severally, in debt in the amount of RMB 1,740,000;

general damages and special damages against the Defendants, jointly and severally,
breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach
of ?duciary duty, conspiracy, conversion, unjust enrichment and breach of trust;

general damages for loss of opportunity to invest; and

punitive damages.

Further, or in the alternative, the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants for:

a Declaration that HSH Hotel holds title to the Lands in trust for the Plaintiffs;

a Certi?cation of Pending Litigation against the Lands;

a Declaration that the Plaintiffs? investment of $3,000,000.00 is held in trust by the
Defendants;

a Declaration that HSH Holdings holds its shares in HSH Hotel in trust for the
Plaintiffs; and

an accounting.

The Plaintiffs further claim against the Defendants for:

interest pursuant to the Court Order Interim Act, RSBC 1996, 79;
special costs or, alternatively, costs; and

such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

Part 3: LEGAL BASIS

Claims against Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and the Immigration Companies

1.

2.

The Consultant Contract was a binding and enforceable agreement.

By failing to pay to the Plaintiffs the sum of RMB 560,000 each subsequent to their
immigration application denials, Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and the Immigration Companies
breached the Consultant Contract and are indebted to the Plaintiffs in the amount of RMB
1,740,000.

Further, by failing to pay the Plaintiffs the sum of $1,000,000.00 each subsequent to their
immigration application denials, Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and the Immigration Companies

28167291

 

 

 

 

 

-11-

breached the Consultant Contract and are indebted to the Plaintiffs in the amount of
$1,000,000.00 each for a total of $3,000,000.00.

Further, or in the alternative, the Hong Representations were made recklessly by Mr. Hong,
Ms. Meng and the Immigration Companies with indifference as to whether the Hong
Representations were untrue at the time they were made and the Plaintiffs reasonably relied
on the Hong Representations to their detriment by investing the sum of $3,000,000.00 into
the Hotel Project and causing them loss, damage or expense.

Further, or in the further alternative, the Hong Representations made by Mr. Hong and Ms.
Meng and the Immigration Companies were fraudulent in that they knew they were untrue,
but were made with the intention that the Plaintiffs would act on them to their detriment by
investing the sum of $3,000,000.00 into the Hotel Project causing them loss, damage or
expense.

Further, or in the further alternative, Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and the Immigration Companies
committed the tort of conspiracy by entering into an agreement with Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen
and the Development Companies to cause the Plaintiffs to invest in the Hotel Project to their
detriment.

Further, or in the further alternative, the Plaintiffs were the bene?ciaries of a ?duciary
relationship with Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and the Immigration Companies in that their
relationship was one reposed with trust whereby Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and the Immigration
Companies had power or discretion that could be and was exercised unilaterally so as to affect
the Plaintiffs? legal or commercial interests, or both, and the Plaintiffs were subject to a
peculiar vulnerability to this exercise of power or discretion.

Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng and the Immigration Companies breached their ?duciary duties to the
Plaintiffs by causing them loss, damage and expense by:

making false, inaccurate or misleading representations to the Plaintiffs? inducing them
to invest in the Hotel Project;

refusing to provide the Plaintiffs? with purported legal documents translated into
Mandarin;

failin to advise the Plaintiffs to seek 1e a1 advice;
8 

pressuring the Plaintiffs to execute both the Original Agreement and the Shareholders
Agreement; and

failing to assist the Plaintiffs in recovery of the Investments in the Hotel Project after
their immigration applications were denied.

Claims against Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and the Development Companies

9.

The Original Agreement was a binding and enforceable contract.

2816729. 1

 

 

 

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

 

-12-

By failing to return the Investments to the Plaintiffs subsequent to their immigration
application denials, Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and the Development Companies breached the
Original Agreement and are indebted to the Plaintiffs in the amount of $1,000,000.00 each for
a total of $3,000,000.00.

Further, or in the alternative, the Huang Representations were made recklessly by Mr. Huang,
Ms. Chen and the Development Companies with indifference as to whether the Huang
Representations were untrue at the time they were made and the Plaintiffs reasonably relied
on the Huang Representations to their detriment by investing the sum of $1,000,000.00 each
into the Hotel Project and causing them loss, damage or expense.

Further, or in the further alternative, the Huang Representations made by Mr. Huang and Ms.
Chen and the Development Companies were fraudulent in that they knew they were untrue,
but were made with the intention that the Plaintiffs would act on them to their detriment by
investing the sum of $1,000,000.00 each into the Hotel Project causing them loss, damage or
expense.

Further, or in the further alternative, Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and the Development Companies
committed the tort of conspiracy by entering into an agreement with Mr. Hong, Ms. Meng
and the Immigration Companies to cause the Plaintiffs to invest in the Hotel Project to their
detriment.

Further, or in the further alternative, the Investments were impressed with an express or
implied trust that it would be used solely towards the Hotel Project and for no other purpose,
but only after the Plaintiffs? successful immigration applications.

Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and the Development Companies breached the trust by:
using the Investments for the Wrongful Payments; and

failing to return the Investments to the Plaintiffs after their immigration applications
were denied.

Further, or in the further alternative, by using the Investments for the Wrongful Payments,
Mr. Huang, Ms. Chen and the Development Companies wrongfully interfered with the
Plaintiffs? property and committed the tort of conversion.

Further, or in the further alternative, by wrongfully using the Investments to purchase the
Lands, which constituted a breach of trust, breach of contract, conversion, or some or all of
them, the Plaintiffs claim a proprietary interest in the Lands.

Further, or in the further alternative, the Plaintiffs claim against HSH Holdings for unjust
enrichment on the basis that:

HSH Holdings has been enriched in that it received shares in HSH Hotel for no
consideration and HSH Holdings received the Investments;

the Plaintiffs have been correspondingly deprived of the Investments; and

2816729.1

 

 

 

,13,

there is no jurisuc reason for the Plunuffs' deprivation.

 

19 As a resultofthe unjust enrichment by HSH Holdings. the Plaintiffs claim a constructive rrusr
over the shares In HSH Hotel held by HSH Holdings.

lenuffs' address for service: Whilclaw Tunmng law Corporation
2400 200 Granville Streer
Vancouvcr, British Columhin vac 154
Fax number address for service (lfany): seem--5217
Email nddress for service (lfany):

Place of trial: Vancouver, British Columbia

The address of rhe regisrry is; 800 Smithe Street
Vancouver, British Columbia V62 2E1

Date: Decembcz 2015

 

(20803/cbk) ahn Fidrhelr
Rule 771 (1) or rhe supreme Court Civil Rules states:

(1) Unless all parties or record consenr or rhe court odlexwlse orders, each parry of record to
an action rnusr, within 35 days after (he end of rhe pleading period,

list in Form 22 that lists
(1) all documents that are or have been the party's possession or conuol
and that could, if avallable, he used by any pmy 2! ml (0 pxove or
dispmve a material fact, and
(in) all other documents ro which rhe parry intends [0 refer at trial, and

serve rhe list on an pnrnes ofxecmd.

ENDORSEMENT ON ORIGINATING PLEADING OR PETITION
FOR SERVICE OUTSIDE BRITISH COLUMBIA

The Plundff claims the to serve this pleading on the Defendants outside British Columbla on
the grounds rhat the proceeding concerns I tore committed Banish Columth and concerns



 

-14-

contractual obligations within British Columbia, pursuant to Rule 46(2) of the Supreme Court Civil
Rules, and section 10 of the Court jumdz'ctz'on and Pmceedz'ng: TrangferAct, SBC 2003, c. 28, as amended.

28167291

 

 

 

 

'o

-15-

 

APPENDIX

Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM:
This is a claim arising from an investment contingent on immigration which has not been returned
following the denial of the claimant?s immigration application.

Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:

[Check one box below?vr the care 97516 that [next dextriber this care]
A personal arising out of:
a motor vehicle accident
El medical malpractice
El another cause
A dispute concerning:
contaminated sites
construction defects
real property (real estate)
personal property
the provision of goods and services or other general commercial matters
investment losses
the lending of money
an employment relationship
a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate
Cl a matter not listed here

?4 EIEI

Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:
back all boxer below that a15pr to flair mm]

El 21 class action

El maritime law

El aboriginal law

CI constitutional law
El con?icts of law

Cl none of the above
El do not know

Part 4:

Court Order Interm?Act, RSBC 1996, 79

2816729. 1