Wei v. Ye-Hang Canada (EH-C) Technology & Services Inc.

Wei v. Ye-Hang Canada (EH-C) Technology & Services Inc.

The Court upheld summary judgment because the motion judge permissibly weighed the record and found no evidentiary basis for non est factum, misrepresentation or a conditional repayment term; the loan agreement was unambiguous so contra proferentem did not apply; the defamation counterclaim failed for lack of any evidence of an expression under s.137.1 CJA; however, judgment against the corporate appellants was set aside and remitted because the motion judge did not adequately address reverse corporate veil liability or provide proper procedural footing for imposing corporate liability.

Citation
2026 ONCA 180
Parties
Plaintiff/moving Party (respondent): Carrie Wei; Defendant/responding Party; Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellant): Ye-Hang Canada (EH-C) Technology & Services Inc.; Defendant/responding Party; Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellant): Aero Future Canada (AF-C) Inc.; Defendant/responding Party; Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellant): Run Ze Xie (a.k.a. Bai Xie); Defendant/responding Party (appellant): Zhi Qiang Wang; Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent): Han Dong Wang
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion (court of Appeal Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment against corporate appellants set aside and remitted for redetermination; appeal dismissed in all other respects.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Non Est Factum, Contra Proferentem, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Reverse Veil Liability, Anti SLAPP (s.137.1 Cja), Service of Process, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Corporate Law Defamation Summary Judgment Non Est Factum Contra Proferentem Piercing the Corporate Veil +4 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carrie Wei

Plaintiff/moving Party (respondent)

Ye-Hang Canada (EH-C) Technology & Services Inc.

Defendant/responding Party; Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellant)

Aero Future Canada (AF-C) Inc.

Defendant/responding Party; Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellant)

Run Ze Xie (a.k.a. Bai Xie)

Defendant/responding Party; Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (appellant)

Zhi Qiang Wang

Defendant/responding Party (appellant)

Han Dong Wang

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion (court of Appeal Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the evidence
  2. 2 Whether non est factum defence was available
  3. 3 Whether the loan agreement was ambiguous invoking contra proferentem

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld summary judgment because the motion judge permissibly weighed the record and found no evidentiary basis for non est factum, misrepresentation or a conditional repayment term; the loan agreement was unambiguous so contra proferentem did not apply; the defamation counterclaim failed for lack of any evidence of an expression under s.137.1 CJA; however, judgment against the corporate appellants was set aside and remitted because the motion judge did not adequately address reverse corporate veil liability or provide proper procedural footing for imposing corporate liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment against corporate appellants set aside and remitted for redetermination; appeal dismissed in all other respects.

Orders

  • Judgment against the corporate appellants set aside
  • Issue of the corporate appellants' liability remitted to the motion judge or another judge of the Superior Court of Justice for reargument