Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff sought to strike a counterclaim under Rule 9-5 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.

• The counterclaim failed to state a reasonable cause of action and lacked material facts.

• Multiple claims were duplicated from a concurrent family law proceeding, raising abuse of process concerns.

• The defendant's counterclaim improperly included emotional distress damages already sought elsewhere.

• Procedural rules were violated, including pleading defects and unsupported legal bases.

• Costs were awarded to the plaintiff, though no damages were granted in this application.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and relationship between the parties

The dispute arises from a complex personal and financial relationship between Jing Cao and Tao Jiang, who are separated spouses involved in parallel legal proceedings. They are both self-represented. In addition to this civil action, they are parties to a family law case involving division of property, specifically a condominium in Coquitlam, British Columbia. The condominium is registered in Mr. Jiang’s name and is subject to a mortgage held by the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC).

In the current civil action, Ms. Cao filed a notice of civil claim in June 2024, naming CIBC as the only defendant. She alleged that in 2016, CIBC wrongfully transferred $200,000 from her bank account to Mr. Jiang’s account before the purchase of the condo. She claimed this was done without her authorization. Her amended claims included requests for rescission of the transfer and damages for lost investment opportunity, emotional distress, and punitive relief.

Mr. Jiang later applied to be added as a defendant, citing the potential impact of rescission on his financial interests. Once added, he filed a counterclaim in July 2025 seeking to stop Ms. Cao from pursuing rescission, and also claimed emotional and punitive damages totaling $300,000.

Application to strike the counterclaim

Ms. Cao applied to strike the counterclaim under Rule 9-5(1)(a), (b), and (d), asserting it disclosed no reasonable claim, was frivolous or vexatious, and amounted to an abuse of process. The court agreed with all three grounds.

The court found that Mr. Jiang’s counterclaim failed to comply with the basic requirements of a pleading under Rule 3-1. It lacked a coherent summary of material facts, did not articulate any known legal causes of action, and repeated claims already advanced in the family law proceeding. Specifically, the emotional distress claim had already been included in Mr. Jiang’s amended notice of family claim, and duplicating it in this civil action was deemed an abuse of process.

The court also noted that the counterclaim improperly included a specified dollar amount for general damages, violating Rule 3-7(14). Additionally, the relief sought by Mr. Jiang—such as preventing Ms. Cao from seeking rescission—was not a proper legal claim and had no chance of success.

Outcome of the decision

The court struck the counterclaim in its entirety without leave to amend, citing its overwhelming procedural and substantive deficiencies. While the ruling does not determine the merits of Ms. Cao’s underlying civil claims, it removed Mr. Jiang’s counterclaim from the proceedings. The court made clear that Mr. Jiang retains the right to defend the civil claim and continue pursuing his claims in the family law action.

Ms. Cao was awarded costs of the application, payable by Mr. Jiang, though the amount was not specified and is not immediately payable. No damages were awarded as this was a procedural ruling rather than a merits-based judgment.