CanLift's Hamilton action challenges franchise disclosure, foreign-law/arbitration/forum clauses, equipment and warranty issues, manufacturing-year plates, Ontario exclusivity and security registrations.
Keep in mind
User-supplied copy received 6 October 2026; not independently authenticated against the court registry. Pleadings record allegations and requested relief; no merits ruling or damages award is supplied.
Read the document, full limits and context
In plain language: Read the claim, the response and the outcome together. A claim is what someone says happened; it is not automatically a court finding. Open the original record to check the details.
What do these terms mean?
Allegation or pleading
What a party claims. It has not necessarily been accepted by a court.
Defence or response
The other party’s position. Read it beside the claim.
Procedural step
Something that happened in the case, not necessarily a decision about who was right.
Judgment or order
A court decision. Its scope, date and any later appeal still matter.
Reading limits
User-supplied copy received 6 October 2026; not independently authenticated against the court registry. Pleadings record allegations and requested relief; no merits ruling or damages award is supplied. CanLift claims as Ontario distributor/dealer; 4C and Partsroom join relief about challenged security registrations. The claim alleges XCMG corporate relationships, franchisor/associate status and partnership liability; these are disputed legal/corporate propositions, not established identity findings. User-supplied issued claim, not independently registry-authenticated. No defence or subsequent Ontario ruling reviewed; no merits or damages outcome established. CSA compliance, serial decoding, defects and security registration validity are allegations without underlying testing/registrations/contracts reviewed here. This Ontario claim is distinct from the Nevada action M004: CanLift is a plaintiff here and a defendant there. Party overlap alone does not establish consolidation.
An existing text layer is available. Extraction may omit or reorder content; compare with the original. No OCR performed.
Accessible extracted text
PDF page 1 of 27 shown below. Verify quotations against the original.
PDF page 1
text-layer available
Court File No.
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N :
CANLIFT EQUIPMENT LTD.,
4C REAL ESTATE VENTURES INC., and PARTSROOM LTD.
Plaintiffs
– and –
XUZHOU CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY GROUP IMP . & EXP . CO., LTD.,
XCMG NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
XCMG CANADA LTD.,
XCMG AMERICAN RESEARCH CORPORATION, aka XCMG ARC CORPORATION,
and XCMG AMERICA FINANCIAL LLC
Defendants
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
TO THE DEFENDANTS:
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim
made against you is set out in the following pages.
IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must
prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve
it on the plaintiff’s lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the
plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this
statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.
Electronically issued / Délivré par voie électronique : 01-Oct-2025
Hamilton Superior Court of Justice / Cour supérieure de justice
Court File No./N° du dossier du greffe : CV-25-00092151-0000
Mechanical extraction of the PDF’s existing text layer. No OCR performed. Reading order, stamps, handwriting, tables and symbols may be incomplete or inaccurate. Compare quotations with the unchanged original PDF; PDF page numbers refer to file pages, not necessarily printed page labels. Extraction is not court authentication or legal verification.
A copied link opens this record at the selected PDF file page in the extracted-text reader. After loading the original, “Open PDF” requests #page=N; native viewer support varies. You may need to enter the page manually.
First PDF page rendered from this unchanged supplied file. This image is a reading aid, not court authentication. It always shows page 1; the extracted-text page controls do not change this image.
FIRST PAGE · D003 · PDF page 1 only · unchanged supplied copy
Read the original
Open the PDF in your browser or download the unchanged supplied file.
Justia — U.S. District Court document mirror · 2026-09-15
Published by Justia — U.S. District Court document mirror.
The six-page Nevada order denies CanLift's motion to quash as moot after finding June 4 service proper, and sets a September 29 response deadline. This is a separate proceeding from the Ontario claim; the parties have reversed roles.
All six pages of court document text read from the linked PDF, not Justia's AI summary. PDF pp.4–5 describe June 4 service on a director and resolve the service challenge; p.6 records disposition and response deadline. No merits finding or verification of later compliance/docket. D003 is the distinct Ontario proceeding with reversed party roles; do not merge.
We link to the source and provide our own short summary. We do not host its article text, footage, photographs, thumbnails or logos, and we claim no permission to reproduce them.
Substantive original article read, with named reporter and date. Background on the commercial relationship preceding the separate Ontario and Nevada litigation, not reporting on or corroboration of later allegations. Plans and dealer statements are historical and attributed.
We link to the source and provide our own short summary. We do not host its article text or photographs, and we claim no permission to reproduce them.
Complete publisher body, date and footer author label read. Feature relies substantially on dealer and company comments. Historical commercial background, not independent proof of later litigation allegations. Parts and service claims must retain their 2022 context.
We link to the source and provide our own short summary. We do not host its article text, gallery images or company photographs, and we claim no permission to reproduce them.
Reporting: Amy Judd and Paul Johnson / Global News.
Global News quotes Ryan Martin, speaking at Vancouver’s law courts on October 16, alleging changed serial plates and model years on XCMG machines. XCMG Canada told Global News that Artic Machinery bought about $18 million in XCMG inventory it did not pay for, and that it is fully defending the civil claims. RCMP K Division confirmed its auto theft unit carried out the April search and that the investigation is ongoing.
Full publisher article read on 18 October 2026. Allegations are the dealer’s account, not court findings; the $18 million figure is XCMG Canada’s statement, not a judgment. The article spells the company "Arctic Machinery"; court records use "Artic Machinery". Whether Martin spoke in a hearing or to reporters is not stated.
We link to the source and provide our own short summary. We do not host its article text, footage, photographs, thumbnails or logos, and we claim no permission to reproduce them.
