Lee v. Li

Lee v. Li

Court retained jurisdiction in British Columbia to determine the in personam fraud claim because the parties and evidence were here and it was fair and just to do so; on the evidence including credible witness testimony of tremor, detailed forensic analysis by Anne Silvers and observable discrepancies in the documents, the Court concluded the body of the April 1994 Wills was not written by Dr. Li, rejected the defendants' contradictory evidence and expert opinion, and found the defendants acted fraudulently in asserting the Wills were the testator's work; accordingly the plaintiffs' declaratory relief was granted, damages were adjourned pending Taiwanese probate, and special costs awarded...

Citation
2001 BCSC 434
Parties
Plaintiff: Chen Chen Lee; Plaintiff: Eana Lee aka Chu Chu Lee; Plaintiff: Ling Ling Lee; Defendant: Te-Tsung Li aka Thomas Li; Defendant: Liao Kwei-Lam
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Fraud Action Concerning Holograph Wills / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Declaratory relief granted that the Wills were not in the handwriting of Dr. Li and were procured by fraud; jurisdiction retained in British Columbia; assessment of damages including punitive damages adjourned pending resolution of Taiwanese probate; special costs awarded to plaintiffs payable forthwith.
Legal Topics
Forgery, Holograph Wills, Jurisdiction, Forum Conveniens, Damages, Costs, Credibility of Witnesses
Source Language
English
Probate Equity Tort Conflict of Laws Civil Procedure Forensic Document Examination Forgery Holograph Wills +5 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chen Chen Lee

Plaintiff

Eana Lee aka Chu Chu Lee

Plaintiff

Ling Ling Lee

Plaintiff

Te-Tsung Li aka Thomas Li

Defendant

Liao Kwei-Lam

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Fraud Action Concerning Holograph Wills / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does British Columbia have jurisdiction over the fraud allegation?
  2. 2 If BC has jurisdiction, should BC decline in favor of Taiwan (forum conveniens)?
  3. 3 Were the defendants liable for perpetrating a fraud by producing forged Wills?

Ratio Decidendi

Court retained jurisdiction in British Columbia to determine the in personam fraud claim because the parties and evidence were here and it was fair and just to do so; on the evidence including credible witness testimony of tremor, detailed forensic analysis by Anne Silvers and observable discrepancies in the documents, the Court concluded the body of the April 1994 Wills was not written by Dr. Li, rejected the defendants' contradictory evidence and expert opinion, and found the defendants acted fraudulently in asserting the Wills were the testator's work; accordingly the plaintiffs' declaratory relief was granted, damages were adjourned pending Taiwanese probate, and special costs awarded...

Court Disposition

Declaratory relief granted that the Wills were not in the handwriting of Dr. Li and were procured by fraud; jurisdiction retained in British Columbia; assessment of damages including punitive damages adjourned pending resolution of Taiwanese probate; special costs awarded to plaintiffs payable forthwith.

Orders

  • Declaration that the April 9, 1994 Wills were not written by Dr. Cheng Chi Li and are null and void as procured by fraud
  • Court retains jurisdiction; issues of damages and punitive damages adjourned until conclusion of Taiwanese probate proceedings and either party may raise those issues thereafter