Wild Timber proceeding — entered Mareva order

Interim court orderSupplied copy · private research edition

Court: Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry
Proceeding: VLC-S-S-260999
Document format: PDF · 6 pages
Date and filing status: 2026-03-11 · Entered interlocutory order evidenced by supplied signed/stamped copy. Present continuing effect and subsequent variations/discharge not independently verified.

In short

The supplied March 11 order imposed interim asset restrictions in VLC-S-S-260999, not a merits ruling or damages award. It was extended, varied and replaced on September 4, 2026 (D010).

Keep in mind

User-supplied March 11 entered copy; not independently registry-authenticated.

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 March 11 entered copy; not independently registry-authenticated. The October 1 trustee report (S051 para.24) reports that the related S-260999 order was extended, varied and replaced on September 4, including additional C$5 million trust security. The September 4 replacement order has since been supplied as D010; it is not part of the March original. The March C$32,456,992 amount is security that ends that injunction, not damages awarded or an express asset-value cap. Operative restrictions specifically named XCMG Canada Ltd. The order did not decide the pleaded misconduct allegations. Schedule B is referenced but appears absent from the supplied six-page copy.

Read the supplied copy

D005 · Source record S021 · VLC-S-S-260999

No usable existing text layer. OCR is needed before this copy can be searched reliably. No OCR performed.

FIRST PAGE · PDF page 1 image

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.

PDF page 1 of 6 shown below. Verify quotations against the original.

PDF page 1

insufficient text layer — OCR may be needed

No extractable text is available for this page. Read the unchanged original; OCR has not been performed.

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.

Open all extracted text as plain text

Read the original

Open the PDF in your browser or download the unchanged supplied file.

0.09 MB · Original bytes are checked against the recorded SHA-256 checksum before opening or downloading. File integrity is not court authentication.

Context

The supplied March 11 order imposed interim asset restrictions in VLC-S-S-260999, not a merits ruling or damages award. It was extended, varied and replaced on September 4, 2026 (D010).

Parties and roles

Ryan Martin and the other plaintiffs named in D001 against XCMG Canada Ltd. and the other defendants in the same caption. The operative asset restrictions specifically name XCMG Canada Ltd.

What this document records

Made on plaintiffs' application without notice; no other party served. Court read affidavits of Marko Dragicevik and Paul Gough dated March 9 and Ryan Martin dated March 10, 2026. Those affidavits are not part of this supplied document. (p. 1 application recital).
XCMG Canada Ltd. may not remove Canadian assets, dispose/deal with or diminish their value, including inventory and financing assets, without court leave on notice to plaintiffs; related-party money transfers also require leave, subject to the order. (p. 2, paras. 2-3).
Reasonable ordinary/proper business expenses permitted up to C$250,000/month; reasonable legal advice/representation permitted up to handwritten C$20,000/month (printed C$10,000 crossed out). Defendant must first advise plaintiffs' solicitors in writing of intended source of funds. Written signed agreement can increase limits or relax order. (p. 2, paras. 4-5).
Unless varied, discharged or extended, order remains until 30 days after final judgment, including damages assessment but excluding costs assessment or completion of execution. Order ceases if XCMG Canada provides C$32,456,992 security paid into court or by another agreed method. (p. 2, paras. 6-7).
Anyone affected can apply to vary/discharge on at least 48 hours' notice; order remains pending application. Applications generally return to issuing judge, with urgent/unavailable or judge-directed exceptions. Handwritten note addresses Justice Crerar's anticipated unavailability and scheduling. (p. 3, paras. 8-9 and handwritten note).
Third parties with notice may not deal with defendant accounts/assets or permit breach. Jurisdiction limitations and protections for bank/secured-party pre-existing contractual rights apply. Persons bound when they receive notice, whether formally served or not. Costs reserved. (pp. 3-4, paras. 10-16).
Plaintiffs undertake service/notice, compliance with potential damages orders if injunction harms defendant/others, reasonable third-party compliance costs and notice of changes/lapse. (p. 6, Schedule A, para. 1(a)-(e)).

ELSEWHERE

Media and related records

External coverage provides context. Repeated allegations do not become independent findings.

Reporting link — full text inaccessible / Article

China-based heavy equipment company faces asset freeze pending B.C. lawsuit

Vancouver Sun / Postmedia · 2026-10-06 (reported syndication date; original metadata unverified)

Source: Vancouver Sun / Postmedia. Individual creator credit not verified.

New reporting lead concerning the Canadian civil dispute. Original article could not be retrieved during this review.

Read at source

Review scope & rights

Original URL identified by two Chinese-language derivative articles and title reproduced in The Province's embedded October 6 social post. Original publisher retrieval failed; exact byline and original publication timestamp unverified. No substantive facts from the translated derivatives incorporated. Reported later injunction terms must not be conflated with the supplied March 11 order. Rechecked 18 October 2026: the publisher URL returned not found. A Sing Tao report crediting the Vancouver Sun is listed as R050.

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.

Original URL: https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/china-based-heavy-equipment-company-asset-freeze-bc-lawsuit

Browse all media and external reading · Credits & reuse