Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether a Certificate of Pending Litigation can be filed when the pleadings seek to void a fraudulent conveyance without claiming direct ownership interest in the land for the plaintiffs themselves
• Application of the Statute of Elizabeth (Fraudulent Conveyances Act, 1571) to challenge property transfers made without consideration to avoid creditors
• Interpretation of "title or interest in land is brought into question" under The King's Bench Act, with competing jurisprudence on whether plaintiffs must claim registered ownership
• Satisfaction of requirements for a preservation order under The Enforcement of Money Judgments Act, including likelihood of ineffective enforcement absent court intervention
• Pattern of asset stripping and deliberate frustration of judgment enforcement by defendants across multiple jurisdictions
• Evidentiary proof that enforcement would be partially or totally ineffective without preserving the property, demonstrated by minimal recovery ($8,220.51) against a $1,000,000+ judgment

Background and factual context
Lihui Meng and Wenqing Sun (plaintiffs) had previously litigated against Ping Wang (Peter), Qiang Wang (George), Hong Wang (Hong), and Ding Mi (Ding) in British Columbia. The BC litigation arose from allegations that the defendants defrauded and cheated the plaintiffs. Following a trial, the court issued a judgment in Zhong Tie Enterprise Inc. v Topcorp Development Inc., 2024 BCSC 224, finding the defendants liable for breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion. The plaintiffs obtained a monetary judgment and an order for share transfers. Due to the defendants' egregious conduct during the BC proceedings—including refusal to cooperate on document disclosure, failure to appear at applications, and non-compliance with court orders—the issue of special costs arose. In a second judgment, Zhong Tie Enterprise Inc. v Topcorp Development Inc., 2024 BCSC 1016, the plaintiffs were again successful and awarded special costs. The plaintiffs assert that the value of the BC Judgment with accrued interest exceeds $1,000,000, with special costs yet to be finalized by taxation before the BC registrar.

The asset stripping scheme
In investigating assets available to satisfy the BC judgment, the plaintiffs discovered that Peter and George had transferred the Regina Property (located at 2878 Angus Street, Regina, Saskatchewan) to Peter's former spouse, Ding. The plaintiffs alleged these transfers were fraudulent conveyances made without consideration and designed solely to strip the defendants of assets available to their creditors. The defendants had engaged in a pattern of deliberate misconduct to frustrate judgment enforcement, which the BC court documented in detail. Enforcement measures undertaken to date had realized only $8,220.51 of the approximately $1,000,000 judgment against Peter, demonstrating the effectiveness of the defendants' asset avoidance strategy.

The Saskatchewan proceedings
The plaintiffs issued their statement of claim in Saskatchewan on April 4, 2024, amended April 16, 2024, alleging that the Regina Property transfers constituted fraudulent conveyances under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, 1571 (UK), known as the Statute of Elizabeth. In the claim, the plaintiffs sought declarations that: (a) the Regina Property transfers were fraudulent conveyances; (b) the transferee(s) held the property in trust for Peter and George; and (c) the plaintiffs were entitled to remedies at law as judgment creditors of Peter as if Peter still retained legal and beneficial ownership of the Regina Property to the same extent he held prior to the transfers. The plaintiffs registered a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on the property. The defendants filed their statement of defence on June 14, 2024, denying the alleged fraudulent conveyances. In February 2025, the plaintiffs obtained a preservation order without notice from the court. The defendants subsequently filed an application to vacate the CPL on February 3, 2025.

Application to vacate the Certificate of Pending Litigation
The defendants argued that where pleadings fail to call into question title to or an interest in the land, a CPL should be vacated. They contended that the plaintiffs' pleadings did not seek to vest registered ownership in the plaintiffs themselves, but merely sought to place the property in the names of Peter and George, thus merely opening the door for plaintiffs to pursue recovery as judgment creditors. The defendants asserted that the plaintiffs' ability to seek judgment enforcement does not create an interest in the Regina Property. They relied on Fisher v Campbell Custom Homes Ltd., 2007 SKCA 109 and Houk v Daniels Investments Saskatoon Ltd., 2016 SKCA 147 in support of their position that jurisprudence has matured to require more than merely "calling into question" ownership of land.
The plaintiffs countered that an application requesting nullification of a transfer of title due to fraudulent preference is an action bringing into question title to the land, thereby entitling them to file a CPL. They relied on Royal Bank of Canada v Roles and argued that where an action is brought pursuant to the Statute of Elizabeth, the plaintiffs are in effect stating that title to the land was acquired fraudulently, thereby bringing title into question. They cited Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Ramsay and Lubs v Ahmad in support of their position. The plaintiffs reasoned that the individual defendants' application to vacate should be dismissed.
 

The court's decision on the CPL application
Justice Smith held that the claim brought by the plaintiffs clearly called into question "some title or interest in land" within the meaning of The King's Bench Act, section 9-2(2)(a). The court noted that a claim to set aside a transfer of land as a fraudulent conveyance does bring title to the land into question. The court cited Lubs for the proposition that the plaintiff need not claim title, an interest, or a lien for himself, and that all that is required is that the land is directly brought into question. The court observed that The King's Bench Rules section 9-3(1) is permissive, not mandatory—a court may make an order vacating but is not required to. Finding that all equities rested with the plaintiffs, who had "fell into a nest of vipers" when dealing with the defendants, the court dismissed the defendants' application to vacate the CPL.
 

Application for preservation order
The plaintiffs sought to continue the interim preservation order issued by Mitchell J. on February 14, 2025, applicable to the Regina Property. The plaintiffs argued they met the requirements for a preservation order under The Enforcement of Money Judgments Act (EMJA). They asserted that if the claim against the defendants were successful, it would give rise to an order declaring the transfers void. The plaintiffs argued that their claim would be partially or totally ineffective if the preservation order were not granted, citing paragraph 30 of the Second BC Judgment as proof, and asserted they would prosecute the action without delay.
The defendants countered that the burden on the plaintiffs under section 5(5)(a) of the EMJA had not been met, as there was no evidence to support the claim or that a risk existed of Ding transferring the assets. They further argued there was no evidence that the property transfers had hindered creditors. At the second step, the defendants contended the plaintiffs had elicited nothing more than speculation regarding whether enforcement would be partially or totally ineffective without a preservation order, and that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated an intention to prosecute without delay.
 

Legal framework and court's analysis
The EMJA permits a court to grant a preservation order if satisfied that: (a) the action would, if successful, result in a judgment or an order declaring a conveyance void as a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent preference; (b) if the preservation order is not granted, enforcement of the judgment or order against the defendant or transferee is likely to be partially or totally ineffective as a result of disposition, damage, dissipation, destruction, concealment of, or dealing with property (other than for specified purposes); and (c) the action will be prosecuted without delay. The plaintiffs also invoked the Statute of Elizabeth. Under established case law, a plaintiff must establish: (a) there was a conveyance of real or personal property; (b) for no or nominal consideration; (c) with intent to defraud, delay, or hinder creditors; (d) the party challenging the conveyance was a creditor at the time of the conveyance or possessed a legal or equitable right to claim against the transferor; and (e) the conveyance had the intended effect. Justice Smith observed that the plaintiffs "check every box" on the Statute of Elizabeth requirements.
For the preservation order analysis, the court identified three conditions that must exist on a balance of probabilities: (1) enforcement of the order would be partially or totally ineffective if a preservation order is not granted; (2) that ineffectiveness would result from disposition of or dealing with the Regina Property; and (3) the ineffectiveness would not result from disposition for specified purposes such as meeting reasonable living expenses or ordinary business operations. The court found the evidence unquestionably demonstrated that enforcement of the plaintiffs' judgment would be partially or totally ineffective absent a preservation order. The plaintiffs' material showed that enforcement measures to date had realized only $8,220.51 of the approximately $1,000,000 judgment against Peter, and it was apparent Peter had taken steps to frustrate BC Supreme Court judgments. The court noted that George had participated in Peter's immigration fraud schemes, having held himself out as a licensed immigration consultant in Saskatchewan while actually acting illegally. The evidence pointed to a concerted effort by the defendants to thwart the plaintiffs' enforcement efforts. The court found nothing suggesting any transfer of the Regina Property would be necessary to meet reasonable living expenses, carry on business in the ordinary course, or acquire income for defense expenses. As for the final requirement that plaintiffs prosecute without delay, the court was satisfied through their continued engagement that no reason existed to doubt they would.
 

Outcome and relief granted
The plaintiffs were the successful party in both applications. The court dismissed the defendants' application to vacate the Certificate of Pending Litigation. The court granted the plaintiffs' application to continue the preservation order on the Regina Property, directing the Registrar of Titles or Information Services Corporation to maintain the CPL until final determination of the action or further order of the court, and enjoining the defendants from disposing, transferring, selling, or otherwise encumbering the property. The plaintiffs were awarded costs in the amount of $4,000.00 payable forthwith. While the total monetary awards from the BC Judgment exceed $1,000,000 with accrued interest, the Saskatchewan court decision itself imposed $4,000.00 in costs against the defendants in favor of the plaintiffs, with the preservation order serving to protect the Regina Property as a potential asset for satisfaction of the larger BC judgment.