Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute over large sums (about $499,200–$564,200) allegedly sent for immigration-related investment versus defendants’ claim the money was personal gifts or loans to a former employee
• Contested characterization of funds deposited into the consultant’s personal account without clear records or remittance advice, raising fiduciary and trust-like issues
• Allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and failure by the immigration consultant and his company to advance a permanent residence application despite substantial payments
• Application of Rule 56.01 on security for costs where the plaintiff is a non-resident with no Ontario assets, balanced against access to justice and the justness of ordering security
• Limits on costs recoverable by self-represented litigants, requiring proof of “lawyer-like” work and actual lost remunerative opportunities
• Court’s reliance on admitted receipt of funds and lack of accounting to conclude it would be unjust to require security for costs and instead award costs of the motion to the plaintiff

Background and parties

The case arises from a dispute between Jiang Li, a businesswoman residing in Dalian, China, and the defendants, Icentury Immigration Inc., its principal Qing An, and former employee and former spouse of Qing An, Vivian Bai. Jiang Li sought immigration services to allow her fifteen-year-old son to study in Canada and to pursue her own permanent residence application as a businessperson or investor. Icentury, controlled solely by former Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant Qing An, operated in Ottawa and in Beijing and Dalian, China, providing immigration services.
Beginning around April 2014, Jiang Li met in Dalian with Icentury employee Vivian Bai to discuss immigration options. Following these discussions, she entered into agreements with Qing An and Icentury for immigration-related services. Over time, she and other family members transferred substantial funds—alleged to be in excess of $564,200—to Qing An and/or Vivian Bai. Jiang Li contends these sums were to be used both for professional fees and as an investment fund to support her permanent residence application under a business or investor immigration category.

Facts giving rise to the dispute

Jiang Li commenced the action in December 2020. She claims $564,000 in damages for fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with the retainer agreements and immigration work. She alleges that she was led to believe that the funds she and her family sent would be invested and used as part of a qualifying business or investment structure to support her Canadian permanent residence.
Over time, Jiang Li became increasingly concerned about the lack of progress and poor communication regarding her immigration file. By the summer of 2018, she terminated the retainer with Qing An and Icentury, and engaged a new Regulated Canadian Immigration Consultant. At that point, she demanded a full accounting of all funds paid and the return of the investment money. According to her, no proper accounting was provided, and no investment funds were returned.
Qing An’s position is that he never received any investment funds tied to Jiang Li’s immigration application. He does, however, admit that he received third-party funds into his personal bank account. He says that his then-employee and former spouse, Vivian Bai, represented that the money was provided to her personally as gifts or loans to help her buy a home in Canada. On this basis, he claims he simply transferred the money on to Vivian, without knowing what she did with it afterwards.
Qing An further asserts that the funds came in fragmented amounts from multiple third-party accounts belonging to people he did not know and without written instructions or remittance details. Because of this, he says it was not possible to link the funds to Jiang Li’s retainer. He also maintains that, if anything, Jiang Li still owes him $21,000 for successful visa services previously rendered.
Critically, the endorsement notes that Qing An has admitted receiving at least $499,200 from Jiang Li and her family. He also admits that he never prepared or submitted a permanent residence application for her. There is no detailed explanation or paper trail accounting for what became of these substantial sums, beyond his assertion that they were turned over to Vivian Bai to buy a home. On the court’s own reading of the record, this pattern suggests at minimum a fiduciary breach or dishonest conduct in how client-related funds were handled, even on the defendants’ version.

The security for costs motion and governing legal principles

The decision at issue is not a trial judgment on liability or damages, but an interlocutory ruling on the defendants’ motion for security for costs. Qing An and Icentury sought an order requiring Jiang Li to post security for costs in the amount of $43,689.91, based on a bill of costs that included time spent defending the action and legal consultation fees of about $10,124.55.
The motion was brought under Rule 56.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows the court to order security for costs where it is just and where at least one of several listed conditions is met. The defendants relied primarily on Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (e), arguing that Jiang Li is ordinarily resident outside Ontario, has no assets in the province, and has commenced a meritless or frivolous action.
The court identified the two-step analysis under Rule 56.01. First, the moving party must show that the responding party falls within one of the enumerated circumstances. Second, if that initial threshold is met, the court must then consider whether, in all the circumstances, it is just to order security for costs. This latter question can be informed by factors such as the plaintiff’s ability to pay costs, the existence of assets in Ontario or in a reciprocating jurisdiction, the impact of impecuniosity on access to justice, and whether ordering security would be unjust or unnecessary.

Application of Rule 56.01 to the facts

In this case, Jiang Li conceded that she is ordinarily resident outside Ontario, residing in China. The court therefore found that the condition in Rule 56.01(1)(a) was clearly satisfied, and it did not need to fully address the defendants’ arguments under Rule 56.01(1)(e). With that threshold met, the burden shifted to Jiang Li to show why an order for security should not be made.
Jiang Li did not claim to be impecunious and did not attempt to prove that she had sufficient assets in Ontario or a reciprocating jurisdiction to satisfy an eventual costs award. Instead, she argued that, given the specific facts of this case, it would be unjust to order security. She advanced two core arguments: first, that as self-represented litigants, Qing An and Icentury have no automatic entitlement to costs, and any security order should reflect the limited nature of their recoverable costs; and second, that the large sums already transferred to the defendants should reasonably be treated as sufficient to cover any potential costs exposure.
On the first point, she relied on the controlling authority of Fong v. Chan and subsequent appellate guidance, which hold that self-represented litigants—whether lawyers or not—are not entitled to costs calculated as if they had retained counsel. Instead, they may recover only modest costs where they can show that they performed work ordinarily done by a lawyer and that they actually forewent remunerative activity to do that work. Without proof of such “opportunity cost,” they are not entitled to costs. Jiang Li submitted that Qing An had provided no evidence of specific lawyer-like work or any economic loss from foregoing paid work, and that, accordingly, their claimed $43,689.91 for security was overstated or unsupported.
On the second point, she argued that the roughly $499,200 that Qing An admitted receiving from her and her family should reasonably be viewed as security enough. Given that the defendants still hold the benefit of these funds (or should be treated as such in the litigation), she said it would be unfair to require a non-resident plaintiff to put up additional money as security while still seeking to recover the very funds that are in dispute.

Treatment of self-represented litigants’ costs

The court undertook a careful review of the law on costs for self-represented litigants. Drawing on Fong v. Chan and Benarroch v. Fred Tayar & Associates P.C., the court reiterated that self-represented litigants have no automatic right to substantial costs. Any award must be confined to: (a) work that a lawyer would typically perform; and (b) a proven opportunity cost, such as lost income or business that can be linked to that time.
On the evidence before it, the court found that a significant portion of the time claimed in the defendants’ bill of costs reflected the ordinary time and effort that any litigant, represented or not, would spend on their own case. Such time does not attract cost recovery. Although Qing An pointed to certain bill entries as supposedly representing lawyer-type work, he did not provide any concrete evidence that he lost remunera­tive opportunities because of that work. In the absence of such proof, Mustang Investigations v. Ironside makes clear that costs are not available to self-represented litigants.
This analysis substantially undermined the defendants’ claim that security should be ordered for the full $43,689.91 they sought. The court signaled that, even if some costs might ultimately be recoverable, they would be modest and subject to rigorous proof at the appropriate time.

Use of the disputed funds as practical security

The court also accepted Jiang Li’s submission that the funds transferred to the defendants could effectively serve as practical security against a future costs award. The endorsement noted that Qing An had admitted receiving at least $499,200 from Jiang Li and her family, and that he had never submitted a permanent residence application for her. With no evidence beyond his assertion that he passed the funds on to Vivian Bai for a home purchase, and no clear accounting of the funds, the court saw on the record indications of a fiduciary breach or dishonest conduct in how client-related funds were handled.
The court cited earlier authority holding that a motion for security for costs may be dismissed where monies held by a defendant are reasonably sufficient to satisfy any potential costs award against non-resident plaintiffs. Applying that reasoning here, the court concluded it was reasonable to treat the large sum already in the defendants’ hands as adequate to guard against costs risk. In light of the admitted receipt of nearly half a million dollars and the lack of any transparent explanation of its disposition, ordering Jiang Li to post additional security would be unjust.

Outcome of the motion and costs

Taking a holistic view, the court emphasized that each case must be assessed on its own facts, with the overarching question being whether ordering security for costs would be just. Balancing the plaintiff’s non-resident status, the contested handling of substantial client funds, the limited and speculative nature of any cost recovery for self-represented defendants, and the broader interests of justice, the court concluded that it would not be just to require Jiang Li to post security for costs.
The defendants’ motion was therefore dismissed. As the successful party on the motion, Jiang Li was presumptively entitled to her costs. Applying the discretionary framework in section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and the guiding principle that costs must be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, the court fixed costs of the motion in the amount of $4,500, inclusive of disbursements and HST. This sum was ordered payable by the defendants to Jiang Li within 30 days.
In summary, the decision leaves the core fraudulent misrepresentation and fiduciary-breach claims to be determined at a later stage, but it firmly rejects the defendants’ attempt to shield themselves with a security for costs order. The successful party on this interlocutory motion is the plaintiff, Jiang Li, and the total monetary amount ordered in her favour in this decision is $4,500 in costs.