Notice of Removal
This article has been taken down pursuant to a court order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The order was issued on December 15, 2025, by the Honourable Justice G.C. Weatherill in Yu v. Xu, Vancouver Registry No. S187297. The court directed that the publication be removed as part of its ruling.
The relevant court order is reproduced below for transparency.
——————————
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Date: 20251215
Docket: S187297
Registry: Vancouver
Between:
Kai Ming Yu and Qing Yan
Plaintiffs
And
Zhong Ping Xu, Xiao Hong Liu, Hong Guo, 103281 B.C. Ltd., Vancouver Soho Holding Ltd., and Canada Sparkle Long Holdings Inc.
Defendants
Before: The Honourable Justice G.C. Weatherill
Oral Reasons for Judgment
In Chambers
Counsel for the Plaintiffs: G. Forrester Counsel for the Defendant, Hong Guo: G. Cuttler, K.C.
Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. December 15, 2025
Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. December 15, 2025
[1] THE COURT: On October 14, 2022, I found the defendant, Hong Guo, in contempt of court as a result of her repeated, deliberate, and persistent failures to comply with the orders of Master Muir (now Associate Judge Muir) made April 8, 2021 and May 3, 2022 (together, the “Muir orders”). Those orders required that Ms. Guo produce various documents in this litigation, which, at that time, had been ongoing for many years.
[2] I imposed a 40-day custodial sentence but stayed the order for one week to allow Ms. Guo one final opportunity to comply with the orders and to purge her contempt.
[3] Subsequent events are set out in my oral reasons for judgment dated May 21, 2024 (indexed as 2024 BCSC 936), by which time Ms. Guo had still not complied with the orders and had left Canada to live in China. I issued a warrant for her arrest.
[4] On December 5, 2025, a consent order was entered in this proceeding that set out the following terms:
a) the warrant issued for Ms. Guo’s arrest was set aside;
b) Ms. Guo would return to Canada no later than December 14, 2025 and, upon arrival at the Vancouver Airport, would meet her counsel, Mr. Gerry Cuttler, K.C., and deliver her passport to him;
c) Ms. Guo would appear before me in court today to determine whether the contempt order of October 14, 2022 should be set aside and, if so, on what terms.
[5] Ms. Guo complied with the December 5, 2025 consent order and appeared in court today with Mr. Cuttler. She seeks the following:
a) an order that the stay of October 14, 2022 contempt order continue;
b) that there be a declaration that she fully or substantially compiled with the Muir orders;
c) a declaration that she has purged her contempt; and
d) an order that she be discharged from the term of imprisonment of 40 days or, alternatively, that the term of imprisonment be suspended on terms.
[6] I wish to say at the outset that I am grateful to counsel for their submissions, which were detailed and exhaustive of the many issues Ms. Guo has created for herself and the other parties in this proceeding.
[7] This action has now apparently been settled against all defendants except for Ms. Guo. There is also the outstanding matter of payment by Ms. Guo of an earlier special costs award of $112,000.
[8] In addition, there is a separate proceeding by the plaintiffs in this action against Ms. Guo in relation to deposit monies of $200,000 that they allege were paid to her in respect of the purchase of a property called Coldwater Hotel. Although she initially denied the $200,000 was paid to her, she now admits she has no defence to the claim and has agreed to consent to judgment in that amount and, I assume, costs?
[9] CNSL G. FORRESTER: I would expect. Yes, of course.
[10] THE COURT: And Mr. Cuttler nods affirmatively.
[11] CNSL G. CUTTLER: Pardon me?
[12] THE COURT: Plus costs?
[13] CNSL G. CUTTLER: Plus costs. Yes. I mean, not special costs, regular costs.
[14] THE COURT: Regular costs.
[15] CNSL G. CUTTLER: Yes.
[16] THE COURT: Now, in support of this application before me today, Mr. Cuttler, on behalf of Ms. Guo, brought to the Court’s attention evidence that was not before the Court at the time of the warrant hearing. He submitted the evidence shows that Ms. Guo did not unilaterally attempt to thwart the forensic work of Mr. Cree, who was retained to search Ms. Guo’s computers and servers for the documents ordered produced under the Muir orders. Rather, Mr. Cuttler argues that to the extent Mr. Cree advised the Court that Ms. Guo had instructed him to limit his work, it was due to what appears to have been a miscommunication between him and Ms. Guo. It does appear clear that Mr. Cree’s work was ended primarily because Ms. Guo did not pay his invoices.
[17] Mr. Cuttler submits on the evidence presented that, during the period from February 2021 to May 2025, Ms. Guo suffered from major depressive disorder and anxiety, such that she was under medical care both in Canada and Beijing and was, thus, incapable of dealing with the stress of the legal claim she was facing, as well as the Law Society of British Columbia (“LSBC”)’s investigation and disbarment proceedings. He argues that, to some extent at least, she is to be forgiven for her failures to comply with this court’s orders, as a result of her deteriorated mental health condition.
[18] Mr. Forrester counters that Ms. Guo was not incapacitated at all or certainly not to the extent she claims because she was able to attend to many legal issues she was facing whenever she chose to. He points to a series of matters, such as:
a) a June 6 to 9, 2023 hearing before the LSBC, during which Ms. Guo testified for, I believe, three days;
b) in June 2023, Ms. Guo was able to post $900,000 security in litigation, in which she was suing Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (“CIBC”), Bank of Montreal, and Gateway Casinos & Entertainment Limited under the Vancouver Registry action S188703;
c) on September 15 and November 17, 2023, she was able to swear affidavits in the S188703 proceeding;
d) on November 30, 2023, she attended a Law Society of Saskatchewan hearing in person;
e) on December 15, 2023, she was able to file a notice of review of the LSBC’s disbarment of her;
f) on December 17, 2023, she authored and caused to be published an online publication called “Advocate Daily”, a lengthy article denigrating the LSBC, calling it a kangaroo court that was engaged in a witch hunt and plot to cover up its negligence;
g) on January 8, 2024, she appeared in person via Zoom from China, in respect of a LSBC hearing;
h) on February 8, 2024, she made submissions in related legal proceedings; and
i) on March 18, 2024, she filed a response to the civil claim in respect of the Coldwater Hotel claim, denying payment of the $200,000 despite apparently having possession of bank statements from her personal account that demonstrated the deposits were made.
[19] Mr. Forrester submits that Ms. Guo is not to be believed when she says she did not purposely suppress the production of documents she was ordered to produce.
[20] On the whole of the evidence before me, I accept that Ms. Guo did suffer from depression, and while I have some sympathy for her as a result of her mental health condition, I am unable to find that she was as incapacitated as she claims to have been. I am satisfied that what was really at the root of Ms. Guo’s failures to comply with this court’s orders was her unwillingness or inability to pay for the services, both legal and forensic, that were necessary for her to comply with the orders. The contempt of court order related to Ms. Guo’s pattern of non-compliance dates back over almost a decade when there was no evidence of any mental incapacity.
[21] Moreover, I find that throughout this proceeding, Ms. Guo swore affidavits that were rife with untruths and outright falsehoods, and I have little sympathy for her persistent and ongoing attempts to mislead the court and play the victim.
[22] I am not satisfied a finding is warranted that Ms. Guo has purged her contempt, given that these proceedings continue as against her and despite being advised that the Muir orders may well be moot vis-a-vis the other defendants.
[23] Nonetheless, given all that has transpired, including that this case has settled as against the other defendants, and given that Ms. Guo has advised the court through her counsel that she is prepared to consent to judgment in the Coldwater Hotel litigation, the question to be decided is whether there is any utility in requiring Ms. Guo to serve 40 days in prison for her contempt of court.
[24] In my view, such a custodial sentence would serve no useful purpose at this time. I am very much alive to the points made by our Court of Appeal in the decision of College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia v. Ezzati, 2021 BCCA 422, at para. 61.
[25] I am exercising my discretion and ordering that the stay of the incarceration order will remain in place, in other words, the order is suspended for one year from today’s date on the following terms:
a) that Ms. Guo, through her counsel, or if no counsel, personally, will keep Mr. Forrester apprised of all material occurrences in her litigation against the Bank of Montreal, CIBC, and Gateway Casinos & Entertainment Limited in the Vancouver Registry action S188703;
b) that she will forthwith remove publication of the article she caused to be published in Advocate Daily on December 17, 2023; and
c) that she consents to judgment in the Coldwater Hotel action. I do not have the action number in front of me, but costs at Scale B.
[26] I will hear the parties either in person or through a consent order as to what will happen regarding the continuation of the stay after that one-year time period. So is that clear?
[27] CNSL G. FORRESTER: Yes, it is.
[28] THE COURT: It is going to remain in place suspended for a year.
[29] CNSL G. CUTTLER: I am concerned about one aspect of the order — which is that she forthwith remove publication of the articles.
[30] THE COURT: Cause to remove.
[31] CNSL G. CUTTLER: Right. And I am speaking as a layperson now, but I have been told that it is almost impossible to actually remove something from the internet.
[32] THE COURT: Well, okay, you are right. Let us make it her best efforts to cause to be removed.
[33] CNSL G. CUTTLER: I think that this isn’t something that has, you know, spawned a whole bunch of different publications. The same article is found on one particular —
[34] THE COURT: Right. So —
[35] CNSL G. CUTTLER: It purports to be a Canadian —
[36] THE COURT: Use her best efforts to cause her to —
[37] CNSL G. FORRESTER: May I suggest that a letter be written? And I am happy to write that —
[38] THE COURT: Use her best efforts to cause to be removed.
[39] CNSL G. FORRESTER: Okay. Thank you, Judge.
[40] THE COURT: You are right. She doesn’t have control over it.
[41] CNSL G. CUTTLER: Justice, there is one other point that I just want to raise, which is that the CIBC pending application is seeking an order that this action be stayed pending her purging her contempt. I realize that you have not made such an order, but it also seems implied in your order that you are not trying to — so I just want to make sure that that is — if there is something that — language that this satisfies something —
[42] THE COURT: I am not — more intelligent people than me brought that application, but I do not know how it is that you can bring an application to stay a proceeding on the basis of contempt in a separate proceeding.
[43] CNSL G. CUTTLER: Well, you have read my application response, but nevertheless.
[44] THE COURT: You can tell whoever hears that application that my intent is to ensure Ms. Guo does not engage in the delaying and other tactics that she engaged in previously and that she will adhere to any other court orders that are made in this litigation. It has nothing to do with the CIBC litigation.
[45] CNSL G. CUTTLER: Okay. Well, I mean, we will order the transcript, and it will speak for itself. Justice, I do just want to say to you that there is no suggestion at all in the CIBC litigation that Ms. Guo has run afoul of any rule of court, which is good, I guess.
[46] THE COURT: I want to make it clear that my intent in suspending the incarceration order is to ensure that Ms. Guo continues to produce all the documents that were ordered in the Muir orders, and I am not satisfied that has happened, and I do not think Mr. Forrester has been able to assure me that that has happened.
[47] CNSL G. FORRESTER: Yes. I just want to say, though, first, that it is on the transcripts — I have concerns about the relevance of many of those documents to the ongoing proceeding, and I do not want my clients to have to help Ms. Guo at this point and spend money on counsel going through privilege issues on documents that may have nothing to do with this. I mean, it has got to be — just some control has to otherwise be to the plaintiff there.
[48] THE COURT: That is entirely up to you.
[49] CNSL G. FORRESTER: And I will also say this is the one area where we are pulling on the same ore with Mr. Cuttler — is that he can advance that litigation. I would expect that he will get instructions from my client to say, “Look, I don’t — you know, I am not too happy with Ms. Guo’s conduct in this proceeding, but it would be against our interests if your litigation was —
[50] THE COURT: Exactly.
[51] CNSL G. FORRESTER: — “shut down”. And we have had — we have touched on that, and I have also said we would probably help.
“G.C. Weatherill J.”
