In a case intertwining toxic loans, a brutal murder, and a court-ordered execution in China, amid the transnational flow of millions into Vancouver’s luxury real estate market, two families are locked in a legal battle over at least five high-end homes in areas of the city reshaped by decades of murky capital flight funneled through underground transfers into Canada’s West Coast.

The plaintiffs’ case, which initially focused on at least eight properties—now reduced to five—alleges that “many millions” worth of real estate was purchased with proceeds from unpaid loans in China and fraudulent transfers into Vancouver real estate.

On November 21, the Supreme Court of British Columbia delivered a procedural ruling allowing the six-year-long Canadian court battle, which includes sordid details such as the slaying of the lender family patriarch in China by the borrower, the now-deceased Long Ni, to continue.

Mr. Ni had promised the lender and his family high returns—up to 50 percent per annum—for providing him funds to invest in Chinese coal mines, the filings say.

Before his death, Changbin Yang, a 54-year-old businessman, had extended two series of loans to Mr. Ni, neither of which had been repaid. The first series, predating 2014, totaled approximately $100 million CAD, including interest. The second involved two loans in April 2017 of about $6 million CAD.

A key detail emerged from a Chinese court ruling in Hubei province. It said Mr. Yang’s claim for massive debt repayments stemmed from a series of promissory notes, culminating in a master promissory note “issued by Mr. Ni to Mr. Yang dated April 8, 2017, three months before Mr. Yang was murdered.”

On July 25, 2017, Mr. Yang was murdered in China at Mr. Ni’s behest. Following the murder, Mr. Ni was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to death by the Chinese courts. After exhausting all appeals, he was executed in 2020.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are five relatives of Mr. Yang, including his wife, Ms. Liu, and various other family members. Most are permanent residents of Canada living in China. They allege that the murderer’s family are “sitting on property in Vancouver worth many millions of dollars,” the November 2024 B.C. Supreme Court ruling says.

The plaintiffs are seeking judgment against all three defendants—Mr. Ni (now deceased), his wife, Ms. Chen, and his daughter, Ms. Ni—for debt, conversion, and unjust enrichment amounting to approximately $113.5 million CAD.

But Mr. Ni’s family, now living in Vancouver, denies financial ties to the executed borrower and asserts that the court battle is preventing them from selling some of their Canadian properties.

“Ms. Chen and Ms. Ni filed a joint response to the civil claim,” the procedural ruling states, in which “they deny any involvement in, or even knowledge of, the financial transactions between Mr. Yang and Mr. Ni. They plead the allegations of wrongdoing against them ‘are fabrications from start to finish.'”

Filings in the case detail the circumstances under which the murderer’s family settled in Vancouver, apparently four years after Mr. Ni started drawing on loans from his subsequent victim.

In her affidavit dated September 13, 2024, the murderer’s wife described how the family moved to Vancouver in 2011 after she obtained permanent resident status the previous year. She and her husband purchased their matrimonial home on West 33rd Avenue in December 2010 and moved in by March 2011. While Mr. Ni continued working in China, he visited his family in Canada several times a year.

Ms. Chen described their marriage as “a typical relationship in that part of China,” stating that she was a stay-at-home mother while her husband was the family’s breadwinner. She claimed to be aware only in a general sense of what her husband did for a living and, in accordance with her culture, would not “pry into his business affairs.” Ms. Chen also detailed purchasing two rental properties in 2011—on Granville Street and West King Edward Avenue—using money that her husband earned.

The murderer, Mr. Ni, was alive when the lawsuit was initiated and filed a “bare-bones” Response to Civil Claim in December 2018. Following his execution, his counsel withdrew, leaving Ms. Chen and Ms. Ni to face the allegations alone.

Initially, the plaintiffs’ claim targeted “at least” eight properties in Vancouver and Burnaby. They specifically alleged that each of these properties had been purchased by Mr. Ni with the loan proceeds from Mr. Yang and registered, either at the time of purchase or later, in the name of his wife or daughter. However, as the case progressed, doubts arose regarding the true ownership of three properties. The plaintiffs amended their claim to focus on five properties, refining their allegations.

The lawsuit now centers on five properties located across Vancouver’s most exclusive neighborhoods, including Shaughnessy, Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, and West Point Grey—areas renowned for their affluence and skyrocketing home prices.

Notably, West Point Grey is the riding of B.C. Premier David Eby and the neighborhood where Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau once taught at a private school before entering Liberal Party politics. The plaintiffs allege they have traced funds from Mr. Ni’s business activities and alleged crimes in China to these properties.

Commenting on his sympathy toward the plaintiffs—despite long procedural delays in their case—in November 2024, Supreme Court Justice Kent wrote, “The plaintiffs are victims of a horrific crime committed by Mr. Ni.”

Addressing the defendants’ claims of ignorance regarding the murderer’s business activities in Chinese mining, he added, “Although Ms. Chen and Ms. Ni testify in their affidavits that they had no knowledge of Mr. Ni’s business affairs, they do not deny that the money used to purchase the properties registered in their name was supplied by Mr. Ni from his business activities in China.”

Travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic added another layer of complexity. Ms. Liu pointed out that Mr. Ni’s incarceration in China meant he was unable to testify in the British Columbia proceedings, although his testimony was available for the Chinese litigation. She also noted that in 2022, with China’s borders closed, the plaintiffs were uncertain whether they could travel to Canada for the trial.

According to Ms. Liu, the plaintiffs had information suggesting that Mr. Ni had used the loaned funds to invest in coal mines in China. They hoped to enforce the Chinese judgment against these assets before pursuing real estate recovery in Canada.

This case, far from finished, is representative of numerous similar legal battles over Vancouver property, characterized by complex transnational loan arrangements, frequently linked to underground banking and opaque business dealings in China. It underscores the challenges of Canadian courts in mediating massive property dealings involving allegations of transnational financial fraud, sometimes intertwined with violent crime and debt enforcement battles.

As Canada grapples with a housing affordability crisis—issues The Bureau’s investigations suggest are partly linked to international underground banking networks involving China and Middle Eastern states—this case seems emblematic of systemic challenges extending far beyond the dispute between the families of the murdered lender Mr. Yang and the executed borrower Mr. Ni.

Ontario pediatrician Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Elon Musk has said he would help Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill financially in her fight against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Ontario pediatrician Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, who is embroiled in a legal battle with a medical regulator for her anti-COVID jab and mandate views on social media, is looking to take her case to Canada’s Supreme Court with financial help from Elon Musk and a leading freedom-fighting lawyer.

Libertas Law, which is representing Gill, said in a press release sent to LifeSiteNews on Monday the canceled doctor “filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada” her case against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO).

“The growing overreach of regulators into monitoring the speech of professionals on social media has become a matter of national concern to the public, which loses the benefit of hearing a variety of opinions when professionals’ speech is chilled out of fear of punishment,” Libertas Law attorney Lisa Bildy said. “We hope that the Supreme Court of Canada will use Dr. Gill’s case to restore the historic role of the courts as guardians of the constitution.”

The application follows Gill’s unsuccessful judicial review of the “cautions-in-person ordered against her in 2021” by a CPSO committee concerning her Twitter comments in August 2020 that criticized multiple levels of governments COVID mandates and policies.

The orders against Gill were made despite her “providing the College with ample evidence in 2020 to support her position against catastrophic lockdowns,” Libertas Law noted.

Musk, the billionaire Tesla and X owner, pledged in March to back Gill financially.

The application to Canada’s highest court comes after her application for leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal (ONCA) “was denied” on October 3.

“The infringement of Dr. Gill’s freedom of expression and conscience, guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, was barely mentioned by the committee when it issued the orders for cautions in-person (which Dr. Gill has not yet received),” Libertas stated in its press release.

Libertas noted that a brief comment about the committee having “no interest in shutting down free speech” was made “before proceeding to do exactly that.”

According to Libertas, the CPSO had placed on its website in 2020 a warning to doctors to provide “an opinion that does not align with information coming from public health or government.”

“Yet the Divisional Court declined to quash the orders, finding that the committee was sufficiently alert to the Charter infringement of Dr. Gill’s speech, such that its decisions were within the range of reasonable outcomes,” the legal firm said.

Last May, LifeSiteNews reported that Gill had vowed to fight with appeals with the help of her Musk-backed legal team after she lost a court battle.

One of Gill’s “controversial” posts she made in 2020 read, “If you have not yet figured out that we don’t need a vaccine, you are not paying attention. #FactsNotFear.”

The Divisional Court decision against Gill dated May 7 concluded, “When the College chose to draw the line at those tweets which it found contained misinformation, it did so in a way which reasonably balanced Dr. Gill’s free speech rights with her professional responsibilities.”

“In other words, its response was proportionate,” the ruling stated.

In Monday’s press release, Libertas Law noted that due to an unrelated recent court ruling relating to Charter Rights, Gill will argue the same reasonings to fight her censorship in her appeal to the Supreme Court.

Canceled doc’s legal battles against medical regulator ongoing for months

Gill’s court challenge against the CPSO began earlier this year, with Bildy writing at the time that the “decisions were neither reasonable nor justified and they failed to engage with the central issues for which Dr. Gill was being cautioned.”

She argued that Gill had a “reasonable scientific basis” for her posts, noting that the previous decision made against Gill targeted her for opposing the mainstream COVID narrative.

Gill is a specialist practicing in the Toronto area and has extensive experience and training in “pediatrics, and allergy and clinical immunology, including scientific research in microbiology, virology and vaccinology.”

Last September, disciplinary proceedings against her were withdrawn by the CPSO. However, Gill was ordered last year to pay $1 million in legal costs after her libel suit was struck down.

The CPSO began disciplinary investigations against Gill in August 2020.

COVID vaccine mandates, which came from provincial governments with the support of the federal government, split Canadian society. The mRNA shots have been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews at its annual general meeting in July 2023 near Toronto, canceled doctors Mary O’Connor, Mark Trozzi, Chris Shoemaker, and Byram Bridle were asked to state their messages to the medical community regarding how they have had to fight censure because they have opinions contrary to the COVID mainstream narrative.