XCMG Canada — statement of defence in the Kurtz dispute

Defence pleadingSupplied copy · private research edition

Court: Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Hamilton
Proceeding: CV-26-00094941-0000
Document format: PDF · 11 pages
Date and filing status: 2026-07-09 · Dated defence with court file number. No independent registry confirmation or filing endorsement established from the supplied record; do not report July 9 as verified filing date.

Read document

In short

Keep in mind

Supplied copies, not independently registry-authenticated. No judgment, settlement 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

Supplied copies, not independently registry-authenticated. No judgment, settlement or damages award is supplied. Dated defence with court file number. No independent registry confirmation or filing endorsement established from the supplied record; do not report July 9 as verified filing date. Strong subject-matter match from identical parties, dismissal date and safety-report facts. The defence does not authenticate this exact blank-number DOCX as the issued claim; obtain the court-issued claim to verify its version.

Read the supplied copy

D008 · Source record S024 · CV-26-00094941-0000

An existing text layer is available. Extraction may omit or reorder content; compare with the original. No OCR performed.

PDF page 1 of 11 shown below. Verify quotations against the original.

PDF page 1

text-layer available

Court File No. CV-26-00094941-0000 
 
ONTARIO 
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE 
 
B E T W E E N: 
 
JAMES KURTZ 
Plaintiff 
 
and 
 
XCMG CANADA 
Defendant 
 
 
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE 
1. Except as hereinafter expressly admitted, the Defendant, XCMG Canada, denies 
each and every claim and allegation against it set out in the statement of claim. 
2. The Defendant denies the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in paragraph 1 of 
the statement of claim, or to any other relief whatsoever. 
3. The Defendant is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Alberta and 
operates across Canada. 
4. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant on or about November 1, 2023 as a 
Technical Service Manager .  The Plaintiff was terminated for just cause on  or about  
October 27, 2024 after approximately one year’s service.

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

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.

FIRST PAGE — PDF page 1 of D008 — XCMG Canada — statement of defence in the Kurtz dispute — **FIRST PAGE** · D008 · PDF page 1 only · unchanged supplied copy

Read the original

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

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

Context

James Kurtz alleges that XCMG Canada dismissed him in October 2024 in retaliation for raising concerns about altered equipment serial plates. His supplied draft claim seeks compensation and additional damages. In a July 9, 2026 defence bearing Ontario court file CV-26-00094941-0000, XCMG Canada denies retaliation and says the dismissal arose from performance, conduct and confidentiality issues. The company says it investigated the reported safety concern and took corrective action. These are opposing pleadings; no judgment or merits finding was supplied, and the draft claim's issuance and exact filed version remain unverified.

Parties and roles

James Kurtz, plaintiff; XCMG Canada, defendant (XCMG Canada Ltd. in the claim body).

What this document records

XCMG Canada generally denies the claim and any entitlement to relief, pleads approximately one year's employment commencing around November 1, 2023 and termination for just cause around October 27, 2024. (D008 paragraphs 1-4, PDF page 1).
The defence denies recruitment and relies on October 17, 2023 and May 13, 2024 employment agreements. It says the termination provisions limit without-cause entitlements to statutory minimums and are enforceable; it alleges contractual confidentiality and policy obligations. (D008 paragraphs 5-15, PDF pages 2-3).
The defence alleges performance deficiencies involving dealership travel, missed meetings and customer relationships, and says a performance improvement plan began September 30, 2024 before the reported safety concern. (D008 paragraphs 16-24, PDF pages 3-5).
The defence says Kurtz emailed Victor Jiang about allegedly changed equipment manufacturing dates on October 11, 2024, says it investigated and took necessary corrective actions, and denies that termination or discipline resulted from reporting safety concerns. It claims the PIP already existed before the report. (D008 paragraphs 25-28, PDF pages 5-6).
The defence alleges missed meetings, confidentiality breaches, insubordination and improper communications; it relies on those alleged acts as just cause and wilful misconduct. Paragraph 36 uses an extortion allegation; this is a defence allegation only and does not establish a criminal charge or finding. (D008 paragraphs 29-40, PDF pages 6-8).
The defence says the formal termination letter was emailed October 29, 2024; it disputes the amount and legal basis of damages, alleges failure to mitigate, seeks deduction of later earnings, denies aggravated/punitive and bad-faith damages, and asks dismissal with costs. (D008 paragraphs 38 and 41-46, PDF pages 8-9).