Axion Ventures Inc. v. Bonner

2025 BCSC 2673 Axion Ventures Inc. v. Bonner

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Axion Ventures Inc. v. Bonner, 2025 BCSC 2673 Date: 20251212 Docket: S210438 Registry: Vancouver Between: Axion Ventures Inc. and Axion Interactive Inc. Plaintiffs And John Todd Bonner, Nithinan Boonyawattanapisut, Monaker Group, Inc., William Kerby, Cern One Limited, Red Anchor Trading Corp., CC Asia Pacific Ventures Ltd., Jonathan Chen, HotPlay Enterprise Limited, HotPlay (Thailand) Ltd., Christopher Bagguley, Mark Henry Saft, Longroot, Inc., Jane Doe and ABC Corp. Defendants - and - Docket: S213309 Registry: Vancouver Between: Axion Ventures Inc. Plaintiff And John Todd Bonner, Nithinan Boonyawattanapisut, Cern One Limited and Red Anchor Trading Corp. Defendants - and - Docket: S217835 Registry: Vancouver Between: Nextplay Technologies Inc., John Todd Bonner, Nithinan Boonyawattanapisut, Cern One Limited and Red Anchor Trading Corp. Plaintiffs And Axion Ventures Inc., Axion Interactive Inc. and Ying Pei Digital Technology (Shanghai) Company Limited Defendants - and - Docket: S218677 Registry: Vancouver Between: Christopher Bagguley and Mark Henry Saft Plaintiffs And Axion Ventures Inc. Defendant Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice P. Walker Oral Ruling Re Sequencing Application In Chambers Counsel for Axion Ventures Inc. and Axion Interactive Inc.: P.J. Sullivan L. Gnanasihamany Appearing via videoconference: J.T. Bonner N.

Boonyawattanapisut Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. December 11, 2025 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. December 12, 2025 THE COURT: Background, Analysis, and Determination [1] After considering the parties' competing submissions concerning the appropriate sequence in which to hear their various applications, i.e.: 1) to remove Whitelaw Twining as counsel in all of the related actions; 2) to strike the claim of the Axion plaintiffs ("Axion") in Vancouver Registry Action S210438 ("Action S210438"), which concerns Axion's conspiracy/breach of fiduciary duty claim, based on alleged fraud on the court and spoliation; 3) to stay the debt claim in Vancouver Registry Action S217835 ("Action S217835") on the basis that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring the claim in view of NextPlay's bankruptcy in the United States; 4) in Action S210438, to add amendments to the counterclaim; and lastly, 5) in Action S210438, to add parties to the counterclaim. [2] I have determined that the applications should be heard in this order and for these reasons. [3] The application to remove Whitelaw Twining as counsel shall be heard first, before the others, as it impacts upon Axion's representation when the trial continues. [4] The stay application in Action S217835, the fraud on the court and spoliation application in Action S210438, and the application to amend the counterclaim in

Action S210438 shall be heard at the same time, and I will determine those applications only after they are all heard. [5] Axion's stay application should be argued first, followed by the fraud on the court/spoliation application (which may include an objection based on suitability) and the application to amend the counterclaim. [6] Proceeding in this manner promotes fairness and efficiency: judicial efficiency and efficiency for the parties. [7] I am very mindful of the submissions made by Mr. Bonner and Jess that the record must be clarified and, if necessary, expunged before the stay application in Action S217835 is argued. However, and respectfully, their submissions overlook the position they might be in, should I determine that fraud on the court/spoliation application should be dismissed because, for example, it is not suitable, or there are issue with admissibility of evidence, or it should otherwise go to trial. Their arguments overlook how that result might constrain or impede their ability to resist the stay application, or result in them repeating many of the same submissions they made on the fraud on the court/spoliation application a second time in order to address the exercise of my discretion on the stay application, which would be wholly inefficient. [8] Proceeding with Axion's stay application first allows Mr. Bonner and Jess to make fulsome submissions

concerning fraud on the court and spoliation, not only as it affects Action S210438 but also how it impacts my discretion in respect of the stay application brought by Axion, such that, even if I dismiss the fraud on the court application, it will be open, for example, to Mr. Bonner and Jess to argue on an alternative basis that the admissible evidence of misconduct they have taken to me is sufficiently egregious to impact my discretion so as to deny the stay sought by Axion. [9] Moreover, nothing about proceeding in this sequence impairs or will prejudice Mr. Bonner and Jess's ability (and their right) to advance what they say is the "record must be cleansed" argument. My ruling is without prejudice to their ability to make that argument and any others they wish to make concerning fraud on the court/spoliation, and why the stay sought by Axion should be denied. [10] Thus, in terms of these specific applications, the sequence will be as follows: Axion will make its submissions regarding the stay application first. Mr. Bonner and Jess shall then respond in full and argue their fraud on the court/spoliation and amendments to counterclaim applications and argue against the stay. [11] Should Axion wish to raise a suitability objection to the fraud on the court/spoliation application, it may raise it at the outset of argument on that application, and I will hear submissions from all

parties in respect of that objection. If the objection is unsuccessful, the fraud on the court/spoliation application will proceed. [12] Once Mr. Bonner and Jess conclude, Axion may reply to new matters they have raised, following which Mr. Bonner and Jess may reply to new matters raised by Axion in its reply. [13] Lastly, let me deal with the application to add parties to the counterclaim. I have determined that it should only proceed when all persons proposed to be added as parties to the counterclaim are served. To hear that first, prior to service, will undoubtedly result in applications to set aside, which will meant that most if not all of the same submissions will be repeated, which would be wholly inefficient for the parties and not promote judicial economy in any respect. [14] Moving forward, the trial will continue on January 6, 2026. At that time, I will hear submissions on the application to remove Whitelaw Twining as counsel in the actions before me at trial, subject to anything arising from the application to be heard by Justice Ross on September 17, 2025 (to strike the recently commenced lawsuit brought by Mr. Bonner and Jess against Whitelaw Twining). If Mr. Justice Ross has reserved and we do not have the decision by January 6, I will defer the hearing of the application until his decision is released. [15] In any event, I will issue my decision once the

hearing of that application to remove Whitelaw Twining as counsel concludes. If the application is successful, then of course Axion will have to retain new counsel, and the hearing of the other applications will be delayed until new counsel are retained. But if Mr. Bonner and Jess are not successful in removing Whitelaw Twining as counsel, then after I issue my reasons, I will hear the stay application, the fraud on the court/spoliation, and the amendments application in the manner, in the sequence I have outlined above. Summary [16] In summary: [17] I will hear the application to remove Whitelaw Twining as counsel first, and then issue my decision before the other applications are heard. [18] If that application is successful, then the other applications (and the trial) will be adjourned until Axion gets new counsel. [19] If it is not successful, so that Whitelaw Twining remains as counsel, I will then hear Axion's submissions on its stay application first. Then, I will hear from Mr. Bonner and Jess on their fraud and the court/spoliation application (e.g., why Action S210438 should be dismissed; why the stay sought by Axion to Action S217835 should be denied; and why, even if I dismiss the fraud on the court/spoliation application, the stay should still be denied given Axion's alleged misconduct issues) and on their application to amend the counterclaim. Then, Axion may reply

to new matters raised, following which, Mr. Bonner and Jess will have the last word and may respond to any new matters raised in Axion's reply. [20] I will not hear the application to add parties to the counterclaim in Action S210438 until I am told all parties have been served, and we then will set a specific date for that hearing. [21] Court will resume on January 6, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. We will see where matters are with Justice Ross's decision and proceed from there. Mr. Bonner and Jess may appear remotely by TEAMS. "P. Walker J."