Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court addressed how to calculate Xpert's damages following its Amended Reasons for Judgment.
   
• A bankruptcy stay affecting Ms. Tang required a lifting order before judgment could be entered against her.
   
• Ms. Tang submitted a third-party email attempting to dispute the mortgage balance used in the damages calculation.
   
• Justice Trimble rejected that email as unreliable and procedurally improper evidence.
   
• No double counting was found in how the 2019 Blanket Mortgage incorporated the 2018 mortgages.
   
• Xpert's proposed damages calculation of $1,018,848.74 was accepted by the court.
   

Facts of the case

This decision is a Supplementary Reasons for Judgment issued by Justice Trimble of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, following her Amended Reasons for Judgment released on August 5, 2025. In that earlier judgment, at paragraph 292(f), the Court had directed the parties to make further submissions on the proper calculation of damages owed to Xpert Credit Control Solutions Inc. by Alexandra Tang and related corporate plaintiffs (2505006 Ontario Corporation and 2510516 Ontario Ltd.). The Amended Reasons were reportedly not delivered to the parties until late December 2026 — a date that, on its face, postdates this very decision (released July 6, 2026); this appears to be an inconsistency in the source document. A revised timetable was set for submissions on damages, and oral argument was heard on March 10, 2026, by Zoom.

A separate issue arose regarding Ms. Tang's bankruptcy. On February 4, 2026, the Court received a Notice of Stay of Proceedings dated January 29, 2026, from Ms. Tang's Trustee in Bankruptcy, James B. Walker & Co. Ltd. Xpert requested an Order to Continue against Ms. Tang, and the Court advised — by an endorsement the source dates "19 February 2025" (also possibly a source typo, given it precedes the 2026 events just described) — that the action was stayed against her pending such an order from the Bankruptcy Court in Toronto. Because the stay did not affect the corporate plaintiffs 250 and 251, submissions on Xpert's damages were permitted to proceed, though entry of judgment against Ms. Tang would await the Order to Continue. Xpert subsequently obtained relief: a June 9, 2026 Endorsement of Associate Justice Rappos, sitting as Registrar in Bankruptcy, lifted the stay against Ms. Tang so that Xpert could pursue remedies tied to her condominium, which had been pledged as mortgage security, and awarded $7,500.00 in costs against her.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The damages calculation turned on the terms of several mortgage instruments: the 2018 Blanket Mortgage, the 2018 Westmount Mortgage, and the 2019 Blanket Mortgage, the latter having absorbed the outstanding balances of the two 2018 mortgages after Ms. Tang defaulted on both in October 2018. Xpert had commenced Power of Sale proceedings on the defaulted mortgages, which were later settled, though the terms of that settlement were themselves disputed at trial and were the subject of findings of fact in the Amended Reasons. Judgment had been granted to Xpert solely on the 2019 Blanket Mortgage, since the Westmount Mortgage had been assigned to another party ("274"). Also at issue was an email from James Smythe, submitted by Ms. Tang, proposing an alternative damages calculation on the theory that the 2019 Blanket Mortgage principal should be reduced to $799,456.32 (from Xpert's claimed $1.1 million) to avoid what Ms. Tang characterized as double counting and to strip out allegedly inflated charges.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Trimble declined to accept Mr. Smythe's email as evidence, for several reasons: no motion had been brought to reopen the evidentiary record, Mr. Smythe had not sworn an affidavit or given evidence, his calculations were not explained or subject to cross-examination, and he had not raised these issues at trial. Xpert had agreed the email could be received only as part of Ms. Tang's own submissions, and the Court treated it on that limited basis. Even considered that way, the Court found the submissions unreliable: Mr. Smythe's email acknowledged he had not evaluated the terms of each loan, did not identify which figures he considered incorrect, and did not specify the arrears or penalties he referred to as double-counted. Justice Trimble also characterized Ms. Tang's submissions as procedurally improper, since they attempted to introduce new evidence that could have been adduced at trial, re-argue damages, and raise new arguments not made in her original written submissions. On the substantive point, the Court found no double counting had occurred, reaffirming that the 2019 Blanket Mortgage properly incorporated the remaining balances of the 2018 Blanket and Westmount Mortgages, consistent with findings already made at paragraphs 114 and following of the Amended Reasons.

Ruling and overall outcome

Justice Trimble accepted Xpert's damages submissions in full, finding that as of the date of the Amended Reasons (August 5, 2025), the judgment amount totaled $1,018,848.74. This figure was calculated from a mortgage balance of $1,014,150.00 (net of a $95,850 lender's fee), plus interest to September 18, 2019 of $66,465.01, less $495,982.85 received from the Eglington property sale (as spelled in the source), plus further interest from September 18, 2019 to August 5, 2025 of $434,216.58. Xpert was the successful party on the damages issue, with judgment to issue in the amount of $1,018,848.74, though the Court noted that entry of judgment against Ms. Tang would proceed only once the Order to Continue arising from her bankruptcy was formally obtained.