A murder in China and a civil lawsuit in B.C. have been preventing the sale of multiple Vancouver homes, but one of them could soon hit the market after a court ruling.

The home in question – a six-bedroom, six-bathroom house on West 33rd Avenue with more than 4,000 square feet of living space across two storeys and a finished basement – is valued at just under $5 million by BC Assessment. 

In a decision issued Thursday and published online Friday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Nigel P. Kent ruled that a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) registered against the property’s title could be discharged to allow its owner to sell, as long as the CPL is re-registered against any new property she buys with the proceeds.

Businessman ‘brutally murdered’

The owner of the property is Li Juan Chen, also known as Lijuan Chen. According to Kent’s decision, she purchased the home with her husband Ke Qing Ni in December 2010, and moved in the following spring.

Ni was executed in China in 2020 after being convicted in the 2017 killing of Changbin Yang, the B.C. court decision indicates.

The underlying lawsuit that led to the CPL on the property was brought by Yang’s family against Ni, Chen and their daughter Long Ni. The litigation began while the elder Ni was still alive, according to Kent’s decision.

The B.C. decision does not provide details about Yang’s death, saying only that the 54-year-old businessman was “brutally murdered in China” on Ni’s orders.

At the time of the murder, Ni owed Yang more than $100 million for loans Yang had provided to him over the years, according to Kent’s decision.

The lawsuit brought by Yang’s successors seeks to force Ni’s widow and daughter to repay his debts, and the latest version claims that their acquisition of three Vancouver properties – including the home on West 33rd Avenue – should be deemed “fraudulent conveyances.”

Kent’s decision Thursday does not make a ruling on the underlying lawsuit. The Yang family’s claims have not been proven in court and are currently scheduled for trial in January 2026.

Rather, the judge’s decision deals with applications from the Ni family to dismiss the lawsuit, either as an abuse of the court’s process or for want of prosecution. It also addresses the family’s attempt to get the CPLs the plaintiffs registered against the three properties removed.

Chinese judgments to be considered

In arguing that the underlying case should be dismissed as an abuse of process, the defendants told the court the plaintiffs’ lawsuit was “attempting to relitigate the essential elements of claims previously determined” in two Chinese judgments against Ni.

According to Kent’s decision, those judgments are a 2018 court order from Hubei Province directing Ni to pay Yang’s successors 27.8 million yuan, plus interest, and a 2019 arbitration award ordering Ni to pay 172,785,000 yuan in principal, plus 198,288,629 yuan in already accumulated interest and a further 20 per cent annual interest on the principal.

The plaintiffs allege the total amount Ni owed Yang was 561,690,000 yuan, which is approximately C$113,472,727, according to the decision.

Kent declined to dismiss the lawsuit because the plaintiffs had submitted a proposed amendment to their claim, in which they sought to have the Chinese judgments recognized.

Previous versions of the claim had not explicitly sought recognition of the Chinese judgments, according to Kent’s decision.

“While I am inclined to agree with most of the defendants’ submissions respecting abuse of process, the problem is that the plaintiffs are now seeking to remedy any cause of action frailties by further amending their pleadings to have the Chinese judgment/award formally recognized and enforced in British Columbia and, as part of that enforcement, to have the registered titles to three Vancouver properties currently owned by Ms. Chen and Ms. Ni (purchased with funds supplied by Mr. Ni) set aside as fraudulent conveyances,” the decision reads.

“Defence counsel has effectively conceded the validity of the Chinese judgments/award in favour of the plaintiffs, although it remains to be seen what findings of fact the trial court might make regarding any fraudulent conveyances, and/or tracing of funds and trusts. I am inclined to allow the plaintiffs to have their trial in due course regardless of past shortcomings in the prosecution of the case to date.”

The judge articulated similar reasons for dismissing the want of prosecution application.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs have been “utterly lethargic” in pursuing their lawsuit since it was first filed, and Kent agreed that the nearly six-and-a-half years the litigation has already taken was “inordinate.”

However, the judge noted that “the plaintiffs’ counsel finally appears to have gotten her house in order,” and the latest version of the claim is “viable” and worthy of consideration in a trial.

“The simple fact of the matter is that the plaintiffs have recovered substantial judgments in China and, as defence counsel tacitly concedes, those judgments will likely be recognized and enforceable in this jurisdiction,” Kent’s decision reads.

“Their action in that regard therefore has merit and it is also entirely possible that the claim respecting fraudulent conveyances might succeed. These merits militate against summary dismissal of the action at this time.”

The judge also noted the plaintiffs’ “sympathetic circumstances,” which “strongly militate” against dismissing the case.

“The plaintiffs are victims of a horrific crime committed by Mr. Ni,” the decision reads. “They are sympathetic plaintiffs to whom the court is inclined to grant leeway respecting technical or procedural shortcomings.”

CPL causing ‘financial hardship’

While Kent declined to dismiss the underlying lawsuit, he acknowledged the defendants’ complaint that the CPLs against the three Vancouver properties were causing them financial hardship.

Chen told the court her husband was the breadwinner for the family, but was unable to support them after his arrest in China. Since then, she has been living off the residual proceeds from the 2016 sale of a Vancouver property on King Edward Avenue – an amount that was once roughly $900,000, but is now “basically exhausted,” according to the decision.

She is not employed and “essentially has no English,” the decision reads, noting that this makes her reluctant to venture outside the Chinese community in the Lower Mainland for employment or assistance.

“In short, Ms. Chen pleads dire financial straits as the basis for discharging the CPLs,” the decision reads.

“She wants to sell the large matrimonial home and use some of the net proceeds to cover her future living expenses. The proceeds from the previous property sale have been exhausted and she has been borrowing money from her brother to make ends meet.”

The plaintiffs alleged that Chen’s assertion of financial hardship was false, but did not provide any supporting evidence for this claim. They told the court they were concerned that if the CPLs were discharged, the defendants would sell their properties and move the proceeds “out of reach,” leaving them without any ability to recover the money Ni owed Yang.

Kent accepted the legitimacy of Chen’s hardship, and sought to craft a remedy that would allow the CPLs to remain in place while addressing her financial needs.

“Since both Ms. Ni (and) Ms. Chen have stated under oath that they do not intend to sell their respective rental properties, and since the ongoing registration of the CPLs against title to those properties is not causing either of them any financial hardship, I decline to discharge those CPLs for the time being and the application for such a discharge is therefore dismissed,” the decision reads.

“However, I accept the uncontroverted evidence of Ms. Chen that she has to sell the matrimonial home to generate funds to cover ongoing living expenses and, given the plaintiffs’ inordinate delay in prosecuting the litigation, I think it is only fair to permit such a sale to occur, albeit on terms that continue to provide some ongoing protection to the plaintiff’s interests as a potential judgment creditor.”

To that end, the judge ordered the discharge of the CPL on the West 33rd Avenue property, permitting Chen to sell it and retain $750,000 of the proceeds to cover future living expenses and legal costs.

Any replacement property that Chen purchases must have the plaintiffs’ CPL registered against it in first priority behind any purchase financing, such as a mortgage, Kent ruled.

The judge concluded with a note regarding the plaintiffs’ slow prosecution of their case, writing that “there is a limit to the court’s tolerance of unnecessary delay.”

“The proposed discharge and re-registration of the CPL (or posting of alternative security) is subject to a condition that the plaintiffs proceed to trial in this matter as scheduled in January 2026 or on such other date as the parties may hereafter agree,” the decision reads.

“If that does not occur, then the defendants are granted leave to reapply to the court for an immediate discharge of all CPLs registered against all the defendants’ properties and/or release of any alternative security that may have been posted.”