Case information

Charter of Rights — Right to freedom of expression — Civil procedure — Intervention — Non-party seeking to garnish funds received by plaintiff in separate action — Whether parties to a litigation have an obligation to notify a non-party to the litigation whose interest may be affected by the outcome of the litigation — Whether party to a litigation is required to make claims or take positions for a non-party to the litigation whose interests may be affected by the outcome of the litigation.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In separate actions, DJ Titanic Services Ltd. (“Titanic”) and Mr. Guo advanced claims against Mr. Bahia for fraud. Titanic is in the business of purchasing and reselling motor vehicles. In January 2019, it entered into an agency agreement with Mr. Bahia whereby Mr. Bahia would purchase an automobile on behalf of Titanic from OpenRoad Auto. Titanic provided a bank draft from Toronto Dominion Bank in the stipulated amount of $118,000. Mr. Bahia provided OpenRoad Auto with the bank draft then shortly thereafter advised OpenRoad Auto that he had inadvertently used the wrong account. He convinced OpenRoad Auto to refund the money to him on the understanding that he would replace the funds. When Titanic did not receive the vehicle Mr. Bahia was supposed to purchase, it contacted OpenRoad Auto. OpenRoad Auto managed to put a stop payment on the refund cheque it had issued to Mr. Bahia. Toronto Dominion Bank returned the funds to OpenRoad Auto.

In March 2019, Mr. Guo commenced a different action against Mr. Bahia, claiming Mr. Bahia had also defrauded him in the amount of $189,000. Mr. Guo obtained garnishing orders against Mr. Bahia and against OpenRoad Auto in that action. OpenRoad Auto had in its possession, the money it had received from Titanic. As it was aware that both Titanic and Mr. Guo were asserting an interest in that money, it obtained an order to pay that money into court. Titanic subsequently sought an order for payment out that Mr. Guo opposed. He argued that his garnishing orders should take precedence. The motion judge held that the funds should be paid out to Titanic. This decision was upheld on appeal.