Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendant failed to comply with a court-ordered examination for discovery despite a prior judicial directive.

• Plaintiffs sought a contempt order under Rules 22-7 and 22-8 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.

• Defendant cited health and language barriers as excuses, supported by medical notes and psychiatric letters.

• Court found the medical evidence insufficient to establish lawful excuse for non-compliance.

• A $2,000 fine was imposed but suspended to allow final compliance opportunity.

• Plaintiffs were awarded solicitor-client costs due to the defendant’s obstructive conduct.

Facts and outcome of the case

The case arises from a deteriorated business relationship between Bill Mitsui and various companies he controls—220Dewdney Investments Inc., 9240Corbould Incorporated, CWI Columbia Properties Inc., and Cityviews Village Inc.—and an individual, Yimin Bi, who had been an investor and director in some of those companies. The plaintiffs alleged that following the breakdown in relations, Mr. Bi engaged in threatening behavior, made defamatory statements, and misused confidential company information.

At the heart of the dispute is the plaintiffs’ claim that Mr. Bi’s conduct delayed the progress of the litigation, specifically by frustrating attempts to proceed with an examination for discovery. They alleged he created obstacles to scheduling, objected to the use of Zoom for the discovery process, and made excessive demands regarding translation services. An initial in-person discovery did occur but had to be adjourned due to the defendant’s disruptive conduct. Associate Judge Krentz later ordered that the examination for discovery be completed in ten hours over two days within sixty days of December 9, 2024. This became known as the “Krentz order.”

Mr. Bi did not comply. He claimed poor health, depression, anxiety, and language limitations as justification for non-participation. Medical documentation was submitted, including a psychiatric note suggesting a temporary three-month pause in legal proceedings. However, the court found that this evidence lacked specificity regarding the defendant’s actual ability to engage in legal processes. Moreover, even under the physician’s recommendation, the three-month period had already expired.

Justice Walkem held that all elements required to establish civil contempt were met beyond a reasonable doubt: a clear order existed, Mr. Bi was aware of it, and he willfully failed to comply. The court rejected his claimed lawful excuse, finding the supporting medical evidence inadequate.

As a result, the court imposed a conditional $2,000 fine, suspended for 30 days to allow the defendant to fulfill his discovery obligations. The plaintiffs were instructed to provide five possible discovery dates within seven days, with the defendant to confirm two dates within three days of receiving them. If he complies within the 30-day period, the fine will be waived. Failure to comply may result in the plaintiffs applying to strike the defendant’s pleadings.

Finally, the plaintiffs were awarded solicitor-client costs due to the procedural burden imposed on them by the defendant’s conduct. The court emphasized the seriousness of compliance with its orders and the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process.