Tang et al. v. Turner et al..
CITATION: Tang et al. v. Turner et al., 2016 ONSC 2981COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-490839COURTFILE NO.: CV-13-492999 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-495752DATE: 20160504 ONTARIOBETWEEN:
SUPERIOR COURTOF JUSTICE))
WEIZHEN TANG - and - JAMESE. A. TURNER, MARY
))Plaintiff )))))
Weizhen Tang, Appearingin Person Freya Kris/janson and Paloma Ellard, for theMovingPatties, theDefendants, James
CONDON,JEFFREY THOMPSON, MICHAEL DE VERTEUIL, HUGH CRAIG, CARLO ROSSI, JOHN STEVENSON,ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION
) E. Turner, MaryCondon, Jeffrey Thompson,) Michael De Ve1teuil,Hugh Craig, Carlo) Rossi, John Stevenson, OntarioSecurities) Commission))
BETWEEN:
Defendants ))))
WeizhenTang, Appearing in Person
WEIZHENTANG, OVERSEA CHINESE )FUND LIMITEDPARTNERSHIP ))
- and - GOVERNMENTOF CANADA,
Plaintiffs ))))
Kirsten Franz, for the Moving Parties, the Defendants, TorontoPolice, Gail Regan and Bill Blair
STEPHEN HARPER,THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ROBERT GATTRALL, MACDONALD GOVIN, JOHN PEARSON,PR.ACY KOZLOWSKI, TORONTO POLICE, GAIL REGAN, BILL BLAIR, LEGAL AID ONTARIO, CORRECTIONSERVICE CANADA, LORI MACDOLAN, DON HEAD, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, POLA, LUANNEDUBE, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
)) Jon Bradbw y, fortheMovingParties,the) Ontario Defendants,)) J. Stanley Jenkins, for the Moving Party, the) Defendant, Legal Aid Ontario)) Jo.1myRoberts, for theMoving Parties, The) Attorney Generalof Canadaand the Federal) Defendants))
Defendants ) J USTICE MARROCCO,JUSTICE ) PEPPAL, JUSTICE C.CAMPBELL, ) JUSTICE ERIC RIBMAN, JUSTICE )ALFRED O'MARRA, JUSTICE JAN )NORDHEIMER, JUSTICE WATT, ) J USTICE MCFARLAND, JUSTICE )FELDMAN,J.A., JUSTICE SKARICA ))
BETWEEN:
Defendants )))))))
Weizhen Tang, Appearingin Person
OVERSEA CHINESE FUND LIMITED ) PARTNERSHIP, WEIZHEN TANG AND ) ASSOCIATES,WEIZHEN TANG CORP. ) AND WEIZHEN TANG ))Plaintiffs )- and - )) TOM TONG, GOWLING LAFLEUR ) HENDERSON LLP, KELLEY )MCKINNON, ALEX ZAVAGLIA, ) THORNSTON GROUT FINNIGAN LLP, ) JAMES H.GROUT, BENNETT JONES ) LLP, LINCOLIN CAYLOR, MICHAEL ) PARIS, JUSTICE MARROCCO, THE ) TORONTO DOMINION BANK, SOPHIE ) PETRILLO, JEFFREY KUKLA, J USTICE ) MORAWETZ, JUSTICE PEPALL, ) JUSTICECAMPBELL J., W. DAVID ) WILSON, J USTICENEWBOULD ))Defendants )))
Lucas E. Lung, for theMoving Parties, the Defendants, Bennett Jones LLP, Lincoln Caylor, MichaelParis, Thornton Grout Finnigan LLP and James H. Grout
HEARD: April18, 2016
LEDERMANJ.
NATUREOF MOTIONS
On October 30, 2012, the plaintiff,Weizhen Tang ("Tang") wasfoundguiltyof fraudover $5,000 following a trial by judge and jury. He was sentenced to six years in prison and ordered to pay a fine in the amount $2,849,459.50 within five years of his release failing which he would be imprisoned for an additional five years.
He appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appealandcommencedthesethree actions against numerous defendants including numerous judges of the Superior Court of Justice, the Court of Appeal and Ontario Court of Justice, the Ontario Securities Commission ("OSC") and several named Commission employees, three law firms and a number of lawyers at those firms, a U.S. court appointed receiver, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Crown attorneys, members of the police force, Legal Aid Ontario, the Correctional Service of Canada and two of its employees.
To the extent that one can discern what is said in the statements of claim, bald allegationsof misfeasance of public office, breach of Charter Rights, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and defamation appear to be alleged.
In all, six motions to strike the statements of claim have been brought.
BACKGROUND
Tang defraudedinvestors from Canada, UnitedStates and China, in an investment fundthat he managed called the "Overseas Chinese Fund." Tang raised over $50,000,000 from investors between January, 2006 to March, 2009. By February 27, 2009 there was little more than $1,400 left in the fund.
Tang was convicted of fraudand in his reasons for sentencing,the trial judgereliedon what he referred to as "overwhelming evidence" that Tang committed the fraud.
Tang's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. At para. 15 of its reasonsfordismissing the appeal from conviction, the Court stated:
Mr. Tang also argued that "there is no evidence there was a crime". In our view, there was overwhelming evidence of a massive fraud perpetrated by Mr. Tang. The jury heard evidence that was reasonably capable of establishing that Mr. Tang, over a number of years, defrauded hundreds of individual investors by constantly misrepresenting numerous significant facets and features of the investments those people were making or had made through Mr. Tang and his related corporate entities. On the Crown's evidence, obviously accepted by the jury, this was a straightforward case of fraud by deceit on a massive scale. Clearly, we do not accept Mr. Tang's submission that "there is no evidence there was a crime."
On October 5, 2015, the Court of AppealalsodismissedTang'ssentenceappealcommenti ng that "this was a massive fraud".
On April 7, 2016, Tang's leave to appealapplicationwasdismissedbytheSupremeCourt of Canada.
THE STATEMENTSOF CLAIM
[1OJ The statements of claim in essence are a rant railing against anyone who may have been involved i n the investigation, regulatory proceedings, arrest, prosecution, convict ion and incarceration of Tang.
An example of Tang's incomprehensible diatribe against the legal system is found at paragraph 14 of his claim in Action CV-14-495752:
All too often it is discovered that all judges are public officers and executives, fathers and God of the lawyers and work for the government, bigbanks and law firms, they always fail to fulfill their duty to protect the public. Judges are Ghost and Swindler, licensed mysterious criminals, not the father and god of the public, who mislead the public and take people's money, asset, lives and good names in Canada. People who do not have any money always lose and only big money and big lawyers could win, there is no due process, a process includes all investors, and fair hearing and trial in Canada since there is no independent and impartial tribunals, the tribunal include investors.
Tang's pleadings amount to nothing more than a collateral attack upon the decisions of the OSC and the courts -all of which have been reviewedand upheldonappeal.
The pleadings are defective in many ways: a) some individuals, such as Luanne Dube, (a court reporter) and John Pearson and "Pracy" Kozlowski, (Crown attorneys) are named as defendants in the style of cause but not referred to at all in the body of the statement of claim; b) many of the named defendants (for example, judges and Crown attorneys, employees of Correctional Services Canada, the OSC and its members, employees and agents) have statutory immunity from suit; c) the pleadings are devoid of material facts and do not disclose reasonable causes of action.
At the hearing of these motions, Tang candidly admitted that there were problems with his pleadings. He blamed this on the fact that he is not legally trained; that he only learned about the Chmier while in prison and felt that his rights were violated in some way. Specifically, he argued that, in essence, his complaint turned on the fact that the media publicity surrounding the OSC investigation and decision caused him great prejudice; that the bail conditions were harsh and d id not allow him access to investors; that he was denied Legal Aid and yet at the same time was not allowed to access $200,000 of his own funds for legal defence purposes mid that he was not provided legal assistance by the court by way of a Rowbotham order; and that hewas delayed in his release and languished in medium security and segregation.
He asserts that the defects in the pleadings can be cured if he was given an opportunity toamendand he made that request on thesemotions.
DISPOSITION
The pleadings are not sustainable. They do not plead material facts thatdiscloseany reasonablecause of action. Moreimportantly,they amountto an abuse of process.
The complaintsraisedbyTang in his statementsof claim werefor the mostpartraised and disposed of by the Comi of Appeal. On the issue of legal representation at trial, the Court of Appeal stated that Tang did not makefull andaccurate disclosureof theresourcesavailableto him and that there was a clear basis for denyinghisRowbothamapplication.Therewasan Amicus at trial and duty counselspoke on his behalfin the Court of Appeal.
Accessto the$200,000was precludedbecauseofa freeze orderobtainedbytheOSC.The basis for the freeze was that his own personal funds were co-mingledwithtrustfunds andthere were legitimate claims to those funds by otherinvestors(seeEndorsementofPepallJ.dated November18, 2010).
It is clear that Tang has broughttheseactionshopingtodemonstratethathewas wrongfully convicted. His conviction did not arisebecauseofanymaliciousprosecutionordenial of Charter of rights, or lack of legal representation but rather because of the overwhelming evidenceof fraud.
The issue on these motions is notamatteroflackofcompliancewiththerulesofpleading or that Tang does not have adequate legal background to present a proper statement of claim. There are just no material facts thatcanbeassertedtosalvagethesepleadings.Everything that he complains about has been litigated before and there is no basis for allowing an opportunityto amend.
The motions to strike thestatementsof claimarethereforegrantedwithoutanyfu1iherright of amendmentand the actions aredismissed.
Costs are awardedtoeachgroupofdefendantsasfollows:thegroupofPolicedefendants, the group of Federal defendants, the group of Ontario defendants and LegalAidOntario, are each awarded $5,000, all inclusive; the group of Bennett Jones defendantsandthe group of OSC defendants are each awarded $8,000, all inclusive; allcostspayablebytheplaintiffs within30 days.
Lederman J.
Released:May 4, 2016
CITATION:Tang v. Turner et al., 2016 ONSC2981
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-490839 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-492999 COURT FILE NO.:CV-14-495752
DATE: 20160504
ONTARIOSUPERIORCOURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
WEIZHEN TANG
Plaintiff
- and -
JAMES E. A. TURNER, MARY CONDON, J EFFREY THOMPSON, MICHAEL DE VERTEUIL, HUGH CRAIG, CARLO ROSSI, JOHN STEVENSON, ONTARIOSECURITIESCOMMISSION
Defendants
BETWEEN:
WEIZHEN TANG, OVERSEA CHINESE FUND LIMITEDPARTNERSHIP
Plaintiffs
- and -
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, STEPHEN HARPER, THEATTORNEYGENERALOFCANADA, ROBERTGATTRALL,MACDONALDGAVIN, JOHN PEARSON, PRACY KOZLOWSKI, TORONTO POLICE, GAIL REGAN, BILL BLAIR, LEGAL AID ONTARIO,CORRECTIONSERVICECANADA, LORIMACDOLAN,DONHEAD,SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, POLA, LUANNE DUBE, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MINISTRYOF JUSTICE
Defendants
Page: 2
JUSTICEMARROCCO,JUSTICEPEPPAL, JUSTICE
C. CAMPBELL, JUSTICE ERIC RIBMAN, J USTICE ALFRED O'MARRA, JUSTICE IAN NORDHEIMER, JUSTICE WATT, JUSTICE MCFARLAND, JUSTICE FELDMAN, J.A., JUSTICESKARICA
Defendants
BETWEEN :
OVERSEA CHINESE FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, WEIZHEN TANG AND ASSOCIATES, WEIZHEN TANG CORP. AND WEIZHEN TANG
Plaintiffs
- and -
TOM TONG, GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP, KELLEY MCKINNON, ALEX ZAVAGLIA, THORNSTON GROUT FINNIGAN LLP, JAMES H. GROUT, BENNETT JONES LLP, LINCOLIN CAYLOR, MICHAELPARIS, JUSTICE MARROCCO, THE TORONTO DOMINION BANK, SOPHIE PETRILLO, JEFFREY KUKLA, J USTICE MORAWETZ, JUSTICE PEPALL, J USTICE CAMPBELL J., W. DAYID WILSON, JUSTICE NEWBOULD
Defendants
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Lederman J.
Released:May 4, 2016 你能不能过来? 请把时间留下来,安排一下。
下星期二, 5月17日2点左右，我们有个司法碰头见面会，邀请远道而来的司法实战专家和几个朋友来我家，一起谈谈目前的形势和今后的任务，发展趋势和方式。司法,打官司的作用，意义和好处，我们的今后的任务和战略战术
页:
[1]