约翰逊表示，苑刚在沙省拥有一块很大的农地，经营加拿大国家农业发展公司(State Agricultural Development Inc.)主要种植菜籽油(canola)和小麦。苑刚也曾出任非牟利团体加拿大华人联合总会的副会长。
约翰逊指出，苑刚生前活跃社区，热衷慈善，多次捐款给卑诗儿童医院(BC Children’s Hospital)和低陆平原的寺庙。
Summary of Triple A Farms v State Agriculture Development Inc
Triple A Farms v State Agriculture Development Inc, 2014 SKQB 369 (CanLII)
by Law Society of Saskatchewan
Law society of saskatchewan logo
Civil Procedure – Costs – Security
Civil Procedure – Queen’s Bench Rules 4-24(d)
Statutes – Interpretation – Enforcement of Money Judgments Act, Section 5
The plaintiffs brought an action against the defendant for damages that they claim they sustained as a result of the alleged abandonment by the defendant of an agreement between them wherein the plaintiffs would perform custom farm work on 3,656.9 acres of land owned by the defendant. The damages claimed totaled $365,600 and were not limited to the amount of lost profit sustained. Later in their relationship, the plaintiffs also performed specific tasks assigned by defendant in connection with land owned by the defendant. There were numerous problems associated with the claim, including the fact that the plaintiffs carried on business under the name Triple A Farms, which led the defendant to mistakenly assume it was a corporation. In the course of the action, the plaintiffs brought this application for an order prohibiting the defendant from disposing of its interest in real property located in Saskatchewan, pursuant to s. 5 and s. 6 of The Enforcement of Money Judgments Act. The defendants brought their own application pursuant to Queen’s Bench rule 4-22, requesting an order for security for costs to be paid by the plaintiffs. The defendant counterclaimed, alleging that the plaintiffs failed to perform the required services under the agreement and that they were paid for all the additional services outside the agreement. As a result of the plaintiffs’ breaches, the defendant was forced to cancel its seed orders and claimed to have sustained economic loss. With respect to the defendant’s application, the plaintiffs provided affidavits that described their impecunious status – they had no income or assets. The plaintiffs also deposed that they had information that the defendant was planning to sell its land in Saskatchewan and that they had had problems in the past contacting the officers of it. The defendant corporation’s head office was in BC, and the primary place of residence for the two principal officers was in BC. The plaintiffs argued that these factors might make it difficult for them to enforce any judgment that they might be awarded.
HELD: The court dismissed both applications. With respect to the defendant’s application for security for costs, it was dismissed because the court found that the plaintiffs’ evidence of impecuniosity to be sufficient for the court to apply the factor in Queen’s Bench rule 4-24(d). The court found that although the application by the plaintiffs pursuant to the EMJA met the requirements of s. 5(1)(a), s. 5(2) and s. 5(5)(c), the plaintiffs claim for damages equal to the total consideration under the agreement was not going to succeed on the basis of their pleadings. They had not met the requirements of s. 5(5)(a) of the EMJA in not providing evidence of their anticipated costs and/or margin of profit, which then did not permit the calculation of lost profit they would have sustained if wrongful repudiation was proved. The plaintiffs had also failed to show under the second criteria in s. 5(5) that any judgment that they obtained was likely to be unenforceable, as the evidence that the defendant had listed its land for sale was not itself sufficient to justify a preservation order and the fact that the corporation’s headquarter in BC would not prevent enforcement of a judgment.