Developer’s claims partially dismissed in lawsuit over failed $26-million project in Port Moody

A B.C. Supreme Court judge has partially dismissed claims brought by a developer who accused his former business partner of conspiring to wrest control of a $26-million Port Moody development, ruling there was no genuine issue for trial.

In an April 29 decision, Justice Wendy Baker ruled that William Wang has no legal standing to personally sue Tina Mu, PKT Holdings, Quad-City Real Estate Group, and Yangtao Chai.

“It is manifestly clear that no bona fide triable issue exists with respect to any claims based in the alleged oral development agreement between Mr. Wang and Ms. Mu,” Baker concluded.

In July 2023, Wang, along with his companies, Buffalo Megan Holding Ltd. and Buffalo Holdings Ltd., filed suit against Mu for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and abuse of process in connection with the 197-unit development on St. Johns Street, Buller Street and St. George Street.

The suit, which sought $15 million in damages, alleged Mu orchestrated a hostile takeover of the development by sidelining the project, forcing it into receivership, and entered into a secret deal with investor Yangtao Chai – a business rival of Wang.

Chai and Mu’s companies purchased the project through the receivership in October 2022, and Wang accused the defendants of pushing him out to acquire the project’s assets for themselves.

Wang and Mu had entered into a verbal “development agreement” in 2017, where Mu would secure financing while Wang would oversee planning and rezoning, according to the suit. This agreement was never documented in writing, but Wang claimed it formed the foundation for a series of formal contracts between various corporate entities involved in the project.

Justice Baker, however, found Wang failed to demonstrate he had a personal contractual relationship, or that he was owed fiduciary obligations from Mu.

The judge noted Wang was neither listed as a director nor shareholder of the limited partnership entities that executed the official development agreements. All formal agreements, including a shareholders’ agreement, and development management agreement, were signed by his companies, not Wang himself.

“There is no evidence that Mr. Wang was a party to any of the written agreements,” Baker said. “The only inference that can be drawn from the evidence was that Mr. Wang and Ms. Mu agreed to create a limited partnership and associated written agreements through which the project would be developed.” 

The judge similarly struck down Wang’s personal claim of civil conspiracy.  While Wang alleged Mu and Chai conspired to cause the project’s downfall and repurchase it at a discount during receivership, Baker said there was no evidence Wang personally suffered damages – only that the partnership potentially did.

Baker did, however, allow the corporate plaintiffs – Buffalo Megan Holding and Buffalo Holdings – to continue with their claims, including allegations of abuse of process. Those claims center on whether Mu and Chai used the court-supervised receivership process to unjustly benefit themselves at the expense of the partnership.

While Baker found abuse of process issue to be “relevant at trial,” she did not rule on its merits, stating the claim must be tested through more fulsome proceedings.

The court also ordered Wang’s companies to post $87,000 in security for costs within 30 days or have their case stayed. Baker noted the plaintiffs hold few unencumbered assets in B.C., Wang now resides in China, and did not provide evidence that the security would damage his ability to proceed.

Mu’s lawyers had argued the allegations of dishonesty and conspiracy were reputationally damaging and required a swift resolution. Baker agreed, denying Wang’s request to pay the security in installments.

A future trial is expected to last 20-days, according to the court, and will involve multiple witnesses, expert evidence on land appraisals, and extensive documentation.