Tang et al. v. Turner et al..

唐炜臻

CITATION: Tang et al. v. Turner et al., 2016 ONSC 2981

COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-490839COURTFILE NO.: CV-13-492999 COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-495752

DATE: 20160504

ONTARIO

BETWEEN:

SUPERIOR COURT  OF JUSTICE

)

)

WEIZHEN TANG

- and -

JAMES  E. A. TURNER, MARY

)

)

Plaintiff    )

)

)

)

)

Weizhen Tang, Appearing  in Person

Freya Kris/janson and Paloma Ellard, for theMoving  Patties, the  Defendants, James

CONDON,JEFFREY THOMPSON, MICHAEL DE VERTEUIL, HUGH CRAIG, CARLO ROSSI, JOHN STEVENSON,ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

)     E. Turner, Mary  Condon, 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 -

GOVERNMENT  OF 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, CORRECTION  SERVICE CANADA, LORI MACDOLAN, DON HEAD, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, POLA, LUANNEDUBE, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

)

)     Jon   Bradbw y, for  the  Moving  Parties,  the

)     Ontario Defendants,

)

)     J. Stanley Jenkins, for the Moving Party, the

)     Defendant, Legal Aid Ontario

)

)     Jo.1my  Roberts, for the  Moving Parties, The

)     Attorney General  of Canada  and 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, Appearing  in 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: April  18, 2016

LEDERMAN  J.

唐炜臻

NATURE  OF MOTIONS





[I] On October 30, 2012, the plaintiff,  Weizhen Tang ("Tang") was  found  guilty  of fraud  over $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.



[2] He appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal  and  commenced  these  three 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.



[3]   To the extent that one can discern what is said in the statements of claim, bald allegations  of misfeasance of public office, breach of Charter Rights, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment and defamation appear to be alleged.



[4]      In all, six motions to strike the statements of claim have been brought.



BACKGROUND



[5]  Tang defrauded  investors from Canada, United  States and China, in an investment fund  that 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.



[6] Tang was convicted of fraud  and in his reasons for sentencing,  the trial judge  relied  on what he referred to as "overwhelming evidence" that Tang committed the fraud.



[7] Tang's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed. At para. 15 of its reasons  for  dismissing 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."







[8] On October 5, 2015, the Court of Appeal  also  dismissed  Tang's  sentence  appeal  commenti ng that "this was a massive fraud".



[9] On April 7, 2016, Tang's leave to appeal  application  was  dismissed  by  the  Supreme  Court of Canada.



THE STATEMENTS  OF 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.



[I I ] 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, big  banks 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.



[12] 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 reviewed  and upheld  on  appeal.



[13] 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.



[14]  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 he  was delayed in his release and languished in medium security and segregation.







[15] He asserts that the defects in the pleadings can be cured if he was given an opportunity to  amend  and he made that request on these  motions.



DISPOSITION



[16] The pleadings are not sustainable. They do not plead material facts that  disclose  any reasonable  cause of action.   More  importantly,  they amount  to an abuse of process.



[17]  The complaints  raised  by  Tang in his statements  of claim were  for the most  part  raised   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 make  full and  accurate disclosure  of the  resources  available  to him and that there was a clear basis for denying  his  Rowbotham  application.  There  was  an Amicus at trial and duty counsel  spoke on his behalf  in the Court of   Appeal.



[18] Access  to the  $200,000  was precluded  because  of  a freeze order  obtained  by  the  OSC.  The basis for the freeze was that his own personal funds were co-mingled  with  trust  funds and  there were legitimate claims to those funds by other  investors  (see  Endorsement  of  Pepall  J.  dated November  18, 2010).



[19] It is clear that Tang has brought  these  actions  hoping  to  demonstrate  that  he  was wrongfully convicted. His conviction did not arise  because  of  any  malicious  prosecution  or  denial of Charter of rights, or lack of legal representation but rather because of the overwhelming evidence  of fraud.



[20] The issue on these motions is not  a  matter  of  lack  of  compliance  with  the  rules  of  pleading or that Tang does not have adequate legal background to present a proper statement of claim. There are just no material facts that  can  be  asserted  to  salvage  these  pleadings.  Everything that he complains about has been litigated before and there is no basis for allowing an opportunity  to amend.



[21] The motions to strike the  statements  of claim  are  therefore  granted  without  any  fu1iher  right of amendment  and the actions are  dismissed.



       

[22] Costs are awarded  to  each  group  of  defendants  as  follows:  the  group  of  Police  defendants, the group of Federal defendants, the group of Ontario defendants and Legal  Aid  Ontario, are each awarded $5,000, all inclusive; the group of Bennett Jones defendants  and  the group of OSC defendants are each awarded $8,000, all inclusive; all  costs  payable  by  the  plaintiffs within  30 days.

Lederman J.



Released:  May 4, 2016

CITATION:  Tang v. Turner et al., 2016 ONSC  2981

COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-490839 COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-492999 COURT FILE NO.:  CV-14-495752

DATE: 20160504







ONTARIO  SUPERIOR  COURT 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, ONTARIO  SECURITIES  COMMISSION



Defendants

BETWEEN:



WEIZHEN TANG, OVERSEA CHINESE FUND LIMITED  PARTNERSHIP



Plaintiffs

- and -



GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, STEPHEN HARPER, THE  ATTORNEY  GENERAL  OF  CANADA, ROBERT  GATTRALL,  MACDONALD  GAVIN, JOHN PEARSON, PRACY KOZLOWSKI, TORONTO POLICE, GAIL REGAN, BILL BLAIR, LEGAL AID ONTARIO,  CORRECTION  SERVICE  CANADA, LORI  MACDOLAN,  DON  HEAD,  SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE, POLA, LUANNE DUBE, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MINISTRY  OF JUSTICE


                                                                          Defendants  

Page: 2

JUSTICE  MARROCCO,  JUSTICE  PEPPAL, JUSTICE

C. CAMPBELL, JUSTICE ERIC RIBMAN, J USTICE ALFRED O'MARRA, JUSTICE IAN NORDHEIMER, JUSTICE WATT, JUSTICE MCFARLAND, JUSTICE FELDMAN, J.A., JUSTICE  SKARICA



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, MICHAEL  PARIS, 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

唐炜臻

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