sa国际传媒’s Court of Appeal has dismissed an immigration lawyer’s attempt to get more than the already awarded $400,000 he won against a Beijing-based company with a Richmond, sa国际传媒, office that forged his signature on Canadian immigration applications.
Ontario lawyer Lihua Bao had alleged the defendants appropriated his name and forged his signature as a lawyer on a number of immigration applications submitted to provincial immigration nominee programs on behalf of their clients.
In the case before Justice Matthew Kirchner, Bao sought damages for the misuse of his name and signature.
In his Sept. 6, 2023 decision, Kirchner said the immigration applications were submitted by the defendant Welltrend United Consulting Inc., Beijing (“Welltrend Beijing”) on behalf of clients seeking to immigrate to sa国际传媒 from China.
Also listed as defendants were Limin Wang, Rong Huang, Hai Huang and Welltrend sa国际传媒 Consulting Inc. The latter has an office in Richmond, sa国际传媒
Kirchner stressed Bao’s contract was with Welltrend Beijing, not Welltrend sa国际传媒.
“While there may be some ownership connections between the two companies, Welltrend sa国际传媒 is a separate company with no involvement in this matter,” Kirchner said. “This proceeding’s connection to British Columbia is tenuous at best, held only by the thread of Welltrend sa国际传媒 being a British Columbia company.”
Kirchner ultimately decided the case was one of breach of contract and awarded the $400,000.
Welltrend Beijing is an immigration consulting firm in China but at the material times was not registered as a qualified immigration consultant in sa国际传媒. For that reason, the company required a Canadian lawyer to sign off on its clients’ applications to sa国际传媒 and contracted with Bao to provide the services.
The agreement with Bao was limited to applications made to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship sa国际传媒.
In a Jan. 2 unanimous decision of an appeal court, three-judge panel, Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon said Bao sued Welltrend Beijing, as well as an affiliate company and the president and shareholders of both corporate respondents, for breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy to injure, and unjust enrichment.
“The trial judge found that (Bao) could not make out fraud, conspiracy, or unjust enrichment, but found Welltrend Beijing liable for breach of an implied contractual term not to forge the appellant’s signature,” .
Fenlon said Bao appealed Kirchner’s dismissal of the claims against the individual respondents, and refusal to award punitive damages.
She ruled Kirchner did not err in dismissing the claims in fraud and conspiracy.
“There is no basis to interfere with the judge’s refusal to award punitive damages given his finding that the compensatory award of $400,000 was sufficient to denounce and punish Welltrend Beijing’s conduct in forging the appellant’s signature,” Fenlon wrote.
