Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The receiver asked the court to declare the debtors' principal a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, or alternatively to restrict his motions under r. 37.16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
   
• Six unpaid cost awards, repeated unsuccessful leave-to-appeal requests, and a refusal to accept the court's decisions formed the evidentiary basis for the vexatious finding.
   
• An exemption was granted for the principal's bankruptcy appeal, which the Court of Appeal had earlier found was not vexatious.
   
• Security for costs under r. 56.01(1)(a) and (c) turned on the principal's residence in China and his unpaid cost awards.
   
• Claims of substantial Ontario assets did not defeat the security order because he did not show the assets were exigible.
   
• Undisputed public disclosure of the sealed Target Price List, obtained under a non-disclosure agreement, supported an order restraining further dissemination.
   

Facts of the case

Albert Gelman Inc. was appointed by order dated December 21, 2023, as receiver of 2011836 Ontario Corp. and Jefferson Properties Limited Partnership (the debtors). Jefferson Properties was established to build a condominium project at 39, 53 and 67 Jefferson Side Road in Richmond Hill, Ontario, consisting of 96 residential units: 60 stacked condominium townhome units and 36 freehold townhome units. Cameron Stephens Mortgage Capital Ltd., the lender, supported the receiver's motion.

Fengxi Fanseay Wang, the debtors' principal, represented himself and opposed virtually every step in the receivership. His objections were dismissed when the receiver sought to raise its borrowing limit and to disclaim 28 pre-receivership purchase agreements. His cross-motion was also dismissed when the receiver sought approval of a sales process. Under that process, the receiver could sell units without court approval if prices met a minimum threshold set out in a confidential, sealed Target Price List. When the receiver moved to register condominium declarations without the consent of Dragon Holding, a corporation he controls, Mr. Wang did not appear or file materials. He later brought a motion to vacate those orders. Many of his leave-to-appeal requests have failed. On May 21, 2026, the court denied him standing at a hearing, finding he had no realistic economic stake in the outcome of the receivership and that he "will not or cannot let go" of issues dealt with long ago.

Three motions brought by Mr. Wang remained outstanding:

• One, commenced May 9, 2025, sought, among other things, a court-approved construction professional to inspect the project and leave to seek an independent inspector of the receiver's activities.
• Another, commenced July 10, 2025, sought to vacate orders made on June 26 and July 4, 2025, and to compel document production.
• The third, commenced February 25, 2026, sought leave to sue the receiver for alleged gross negligence or willful misconduct.

Separately, Mr. Wang was adjudged bankrupt on December 1, 2025, based in part on his guarantee of the debtors' obligations to the lender. As of October 2025, the lender was owed approximately $58 million and expected a shortfall of at least $15 million. He has appealed that bankruptcy order, and on November 7, 2025, he sued the lender and its two principals, alleging bad faith and wrongful conduct. His filed court documents give an address in Fuzhou, China.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

Section 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act allows a judge satisfied that a person "has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings in any court or conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner" to bar that person from starting or continuing proceedings without leave, or to impose any other just term. Rule 37.16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure offers a narrower alternative, permitting the court to prohibit a party from bringing further motions in a proceeding without leave.

Security for costs was sought under r. 56.01(1), relying on three grounds:

• (a) the party is ordinarily resident outside Ontario;
• (c) there are unpaid cost orders against the party; and
• (e) there is good reason to believe the proceeding is frivolous and vexatious and the party lacks sufficient Ontario assets to pay costs.

The receiver also relied on a non-disclosure agreement Mr. Wang signed before receiving a copy of the sealed Target Price List.

Reasoning and analysis

Declaring someone vexatious is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly and with great care. Applying the factors in Re Lang Michener and Fabian, the court looked at the whole litigation history rather than whether Mr. Wang once had a good cause of action. It found he had consistently refused to accept the court's decisions and continued to oppose nearly every request for relief despite having no economic interest in the receivership, driving up costs primarily borne by the lender. That lack of economic interest raised concern that he was litigating for purposes other than asserting legitimate rights. During submissions, Mr. Wang, whom the court described as sincere and passionate, explained that he was driven because God wants him to reveal the receiver's conduct to the public.

Other hallmarks were present too:

• Unsuccessful appeals. His leave-to-appeal requests to the Court of Appeal failed. He was pursuing leave to the Supreme Court of Canada on at least two Court of Appeal decisions, along with a leave request in the Divisional Court.
• Unpaid costs. Six cost awards against him remained unpaid: $13,500, $4,978.22, $3,745.95, $8,000, $600 and $1,500.
• Repeated complaints. His claim against the lender raised matters that were or could have been raised in defence to the original receivership application. It also took issue with the receiver's costs and the sales process, and it repeated many complaints already made in the receivership.

Satisfied that Mr. Wang bore a significant number of a vexatious litigant's hallmarks, the court made the declaration under s. 140 and granted relief under r. 37.16 for this proceeding. Its findings rested on the complete litigation history rather than any single appeal. Even so, the Court of Appeal had declined to order security for costs on the bankruptcy appeal, finding no good reason to believe that appeal was vexatious. Given that decision, the court exercised its discretion to let the bankruptcy appeal continue without leave.

On security for costs, the court applied a two-stage test. The first stage carries a light threshold. Mr. Wang's filings and his statements in the bankruptcy proceeding showed he resides in China, satisfying r. 56.01(1)(a). He did not dispute the unpaid cost awards, which satisfied r. 56.01(1)(c). With two grounds established, the court did not need to consider subsection (e).

At the second stage, the onus shifted to Mr. Wang to show that security would be unjust, assessed holistically. He claimed substantial Ontario assets but did not show they were exigible, and he stated that he had no current access to cash from them. He had also stated that other assets sustain him. Finally, he did not meet the high threshold of showing his chance of success. Security was therefore not unjust.

On the amount, the receiver sought $20,000 per motion. Its estimated bill of costs for one motion showed $11,627.70 on a partial indemnity basis and $17,441.55 on a substantial indemnity basis. Balancing the receiver's entitlement to reasonable protection against the order's effect on Mr. Wang, the court set security at $15,000 per motion.

On the Target Price List, Mr. Wang did not dispute three points: the list was sealed, he received it after signing the non-disclosure agreement, and he had publicly disclosed it in these proceedings. He assured the court he would not disclose it again and argued the disclosure should not support a vexatious finding. Neither point explained why a restraining order was inappropriate, and the court noted that its vexatious finding rested on factors much broader than that single disclosure. Relying on reasoning from an earlier decision in the same receivership, the court also approved the receiver's tenth report and its two supplements, along with the receiver's actions described in them.

Ruling and overall outcome

The receiver succeeded on all four issues, with the lender's support, subject to two modifications:

• Vexatious litigant declaration. Mr. Wang was declared a vexatious litigant, though his appeal of the bankruptcy order may continue without leave.
• Security for costs. He was ordered to post security for costs in favour of the receiver of $15,000 for each of his three outstanding motions, totalling $45,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST. Those motions will be dismissed if security is not posted within 30 days.

He is also restrained from disseminating the Target Price List in breach of his non-disclosure agreement, and the tenth report was approved. No costs of the motion were fixed. If the parties cannot agree, the receiver and the lender may file costs submissions of up to three pages within 15 days, and Mr. Wang may respond within 15 days after receiving the receiver's submissions.