• CASES

    Search by

Han v. Qi

Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

  • The plaintiff alleged financial mismanagement and improper withholding of proceeds after the sale of a jointly operated farm.

  • The defendant moved to strike the claim, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was procedurally improper.

  • The court affirmed the plaintiff’s standing to sue individually as a 50% partner in the farm operations.

  • Claims for oppression and portions of the breach of contract and unjust enrichment pleadings were struck with leave to amend.

  • The claim for breach of fiduciary duty was allowed to proceed, with leave to provide further particulars.

  • The court permitted the action to continue, emphasizing the early stage of proceedings and allowing the plaintiff to amend his pleadings.

 


 

Background and dispute over farm finances

Wenjian Han brought a civil action following the sale of a farm that he claims to have co-owned with Ruiqin Qi on a 50% beneficial basis. Although legal title was held by Qi, Han alleged that both parties had an agreement to share ownership and financial obligations. The farm’s operations were managed by Lijun Fang, who was hired in November 2020 as farm manager.

Han claimed that he fulfilled his share of loan and business payments during the operation of the farm. However, he alleged that from late 2020 onward, he began observing financial irregularities, including a lack of transparency in expense reporting, commingling of farm and personal expenses, and a refusal by Fang and Qi to provide proper documentation. When the farm was sold in July 2024, Han claimed that Qi instructed the law firm handling the transaction to withhold Han’s share of the proceeds based on alleged unresolved expenses.

Han’s claim sought an accounting of the farm’s finances, damages for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. He also initially sought relief under the oppression provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

Motion to strike and procedural challenge

Lijun Fang brought a motion under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the action as against him. He argued that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous or abusive. He also challenged the plaintiff’s standing to bring the claim personally and raised concerns about the sufficiency of pleadings related to fiduciary duty, contract, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages.

Justice Bale rejected Fang’s argument that Han lacked standing. The court clarified that a partnership is not a legal entity and that partners can sue individually when asserting personal losses from mismanagement. The claim for breach of fiduciary duty was allowed to proceed, with the court granting the plaintiff leave to plead further details regarding the nature of Fang’s duty as farm manager.

The court agreed to strike the claim under section 248 of the Business Corporations Act, as it only applies to corporations and not partnerships—an error conceded by the plaintiff. Portions of the pleadings related to breach of contract and unjust enrichment were also struck but with leave to amend. The court emphasized that the plaintiff could revise the pleadings to properly identify any contract involving Fang or to clarify how enrichment occurred if funds remained in trust.

Decision and directions

The court issued a mixed ruling. It struck several portions of the statement of claim for being legally untenable or insufficiently particularized but allowed the core claims to proceed. The plaintiff was given 30 days to deliver an amended statement of claim in line with the court’s findings. Fang was directed to serve a statement of defence within 30 days after receiving the amended claim.

The decision demonstrates a measured approach at the pleadings stage: filtering out defective claims while preserving those that may succeed if properly framed and supported. The court declined to dismiss the action entirely, signaling that the matter was not yet ripe for final determination.

Wenjian Han
Law Firm / Organization
Starkman Professional Corporation
Lawyer(s)

Calvin Zhang

Ruiqin Qi
Law Firm / Organization
Not specified
Lijun Fang
Law Firm / Organization
Stroh Mercer LLP
Shapiro Real Estate & Business Lawyers
Law Firm / Organization
Not specified
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-24-00004184-0000
Civil litigation
Not specified/Unspecified
Defendant