The detailed eight-page Statement of Claim, along with hundreds of pages of evidence and Exhibits, assert that commencing in 2001, the Defendants assisted in fraudulently transferring a property (16676-84th St., Surrey, B.C.), currently worth approximately $3 million to 635160 B.C. Ltd., in a non-arm's length transaction.

The lawsuit filed on March 28, 2007 (Action No. S104801 New Westminster Registry) consisted of a Writ of Summons, which was then followed by a Statement of Claim filed on June 18, 2007. Dhillon claims firstly that he, despite being a mortgage holder and being properly registered on title, was not properly served. Furthermore, Dhillon asserts that Notices duly required under B.C. law during foreclosure proceedings were not properly served, prior to the date of the alleged improper transfer.

Other improprieties alleged in the lawsuit include negligence, breaches of fiduciary duties and unlawful payment of "kickbacks". The claim clearly outlined by Dhillon asserts that he placed a non-refundable cash deposit in a solicitor's trust account, pursuant to a Supreme Court Order, as the requisite next step in the course of acquiring the subject property. Allegedly, no contact was made to notify Dhillon or his legal representatives by the appropriate parties of the events which followed, as alleged in the Statement of Claim.

Further details in the Statement of Claim allege that the British Columbia Supreme Court was seriously misinformed in February 2002 by the Defendants and others and the subject property was sold far below market value to a non-arm's length party. The purchaser was a numbered company owned by Mr. and Mrs. Corey Pannu, residents of Aldergrove, B.C., according to corporate filings.

According to Court documents, the B.C. Supreme Court approved a purchase agreement, wherein Dhillon was the purchaser, at a price which was 80 percent higher than the eventual conveyance price. "This fact in and of itself raises a myriad of questions," Dhillon said.

"I have waited a long time to be able to finally present the truth in the proper forum. I pursue this claim at some risk to myself and loved ones. In this regard, the Abbotsford Police Department has already opened a file with regards to threats of harm to me by those who would benefit by my silence," added Dhillon.

The Honourable Justice Burnyeat, a noted foreclosure expert in his career as a lawyer, decided after a lengthy hearing on June 4, 2007, that the "subdivision plan is to be approved by the City of Surrey no later than August 1, 2007, subject to the ability of 635160 B.C. Ltd. to apply before me for an extension ...".

Just one week later, on June 11, 2007, The Honourable Justice Groves granted Dhillon the ability to pursue his claim and adjourned an application brought on by some of the Defendants to have the claim dismissed. In a 10-page decision, Justice Groves noted "that the matter appears to be complex ... but Dhillon represents himself, and he appears articulate and is in Court with a large number of banker's boxes .... He (Dhillon) has, thus far, vigorously defended ... the claims articulated by the defendants. Specifically, he has responded to interrogatories with some close to 150 pages of response. He has responded to a notice of motion for removal of the caveat and the certificate of pending litigation with some success in that Justice Burnyeat has granted a form of security and of prohibition on sale of the subdivided lands in question without further court order."

"The Court Order pronounced by Justice Burnyeat was very well formulated," said Dhillon. "It prevents the misappropriation of my equitable interest, if any, while allowing the present registered owner the flexibility to enhance any value by subdivision registration, and/or other means which ultimately will fairly accrue to the rightful party or parties.

"The Presiding Judges seemingly want to let my case develop so that its merits can be analyzed."

The June 11 B.C. Supreme Court decision goes on to state it finds that "there may be, on one reading, internal conflicts within the affidavits of the defendants.

Dhillon, who again represented himself at the above noted hearings, stated that it was a humbling and satisfying experience to have the Honourable Court, once again, grant him the ability to pursue justice in this matter. The recent flurry of court activity started with a ruling by Madam Justice Brown on June 1, 2007, in part, setting this dispute down for a hearing on June 4, 2007.

"I have been fortunate in my life as I have survived some extreme difficulties ... and to be able to have my day in Court in this matter was very important to me, my family and friends. This is a very personal matter for me, as I have been endlessly questioned and even ridiculed by many observers, as it was stated to me that the Defendants 'pulled a fast one' over on me and the judicial system.

"Pursuing the truth and justice has come at a heavy personal cost and the time lost could have been spent otherwise with loved ones. The agony caused to me by the Defendants and other individuals penetrated deeply and only I know what I have had to go through due to collateral financial events. The domino effect of this protracted series of events has taken a real toll."

The Plaintiff is also seeking that the court award punitive, compensatory and exemplary damages and costs against the Defendants. "We must not forget that justice sometimes grinds slowly," said Dhillon.