Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Enforcement of a long-outstanding U.S. restitution order through Ontario’s civil justice system.

• Defendant’s deliberate evasion using multiple aliases and relocation across jurisdictions.

• Justification for granting ex parte relief based on debtor's fraudulent and evasive conduct.

• Application of Rules 60.07 and 60.08 to revive expired writ and authorize garnishment.

• Sufficient evidentiary basis found despite significant time lapse and procedural delays.

• Court’s discretionary use of Rule 2.03 to allow enforcement through known aliases.

Facts and procedural background

The plaintiff, Robert R. Ng, sought to enforce a restitution order arising from a 2007 U.S. federal fraud conviction against the defendant, Hao Ji Tang. Tang, also known under various aliases including Joseph Hokai Tang, Joey Hicks, Chef Kai, Joey Dang, and Joey Tang, was convicted of ten counts of mail and wire fraud in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Following incarceration, he was deported to Canada, where he changed his name without disclosing his criminal history. A restitution order was entered in favour of the plaintiff in the amount of $210,750 USD, with interest totalling $172,006.64 USD.

In 2015, Ng commenced an Ontario action to enforce the U.S. judgment. Tang was noted in default and a default judgment was granted for $382,756.64 USD, with additional Canadian costs. However, enforcement proved impossible at the time as Tang could not be located. Ng submitted a writ of seizure and sale in 2016, but Tang’s whereabouts remained unknown for years. To facilitate enforcement, the plaintiff created a public website soliciting information on Tang's location. In 2024, Tang was confirmed to be living and working in Niagara-on-the-Lake under the alias Joey Dang.

Legal basis for relief

The court considered whether to allow an alias writ of seizure and sale and a notice of garnishment more than six years after the original judgment. Under Rule 60.07(2) and 60.08(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, leave of the court is required in such circumstances. The test involves demonstrating that the delay does not amount to waiver or acquiescence. The court emphasized the low evidentiary threshold for granting such relief, highlighting the plaintiff's consistent efforts to locate the defendant, including use of a private investigator and public outreach. The court found these actions sufficient to demonstrate ongoing intent to enforce the judgment.

Additionally, Rule 60.07(10) permits a creditor to request writs that reflect a debtor’s aliases. Given Tang's repeated name changes to avoid enforcement, the court concluded that allowing the alias writ and garnishment was in the interests of justice. The application was brought ex parte, and the court found this appropriate due to the impracticability of giving notice to a debtor known to be evasive and deceptive.

Outcome of the motion

The court granted all requested relief. The plaintiff was authorized to issue a new writ of seizure and sale and a notice of garnishment in the names of Hao Ji Tang and his known aliases. The court expressly stated the orders were made without prejudice to the defendant’s right to challenge them through a motion to set them aside. To prevent further delay in enforcement, the court directed that future motions related to enforcement could be brought directly to the associate judge’s attention.