The Equibit proceedings document a prolonged sequence of events that, viewed in isolation, might appear as unfortunate coincidence or ordinary commercial friction. Viewed together, they present a series of red flags that continue to demand explanation.
The record spans four Ontario Superior Court files: CV-20-00645492-0000 (Equibit Group Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada et al. / Sergei Sachkov), CV-21-00654929-0000 (Equibit Group Ltd. v. Christian Saucier et al.), CV-26-00015305-0000 (Equibit Group Ltd. v. Marc Godard), and CV-26-00017856-0000 (Equibit Group Ltd. and Chris Horlacher v. Nathan Wosnack and Ubitquity, LLC). Each point below is drawn from those files, the forensic record, or the OIC final report.
What Happened With the Ontario Securities Commission?
First, early regulatory engagement by the Ontario Securities Commission created a set of expectations around Equibit’s pre-sale and development activities that later sat uneasily with the enforcement posture the same regulator adopted.
What Happened to the Lead Developer and Source Code?
Second, the sudden disappearance of the lead protocol developer and of critical source code occurred at a moment when the company was approaching commercial viability and had secured federal research support.
What Technical Attacks Has Equibit Documented?
Third, a multi-year series of technical compromises affected both corporate and personal infrastructure, including routers, DNS resolution, website integrity, and authentication systems. The sophistication and persistence of these incidents exceed ordinary cybercrime patterns.
How Was Equibit Financially Isolated?
Fourth, successive de-banking and financial-isolation measures by major payment platforms and financial institutions removed normal commercial channels at precisely the periods when the company and its founder were attempting to fund litigation and maintain operations.
What Are the Equibit Impersonation Websites?
Fifth, professional impersonation websites were deployed at domains incorporating the company’s own name, using its branding and, in one case, the founder’s likeness, timed to periods of elevated public visibility.
How Did an Impersonation Site Outrank the Record?
Sixth, one of those impersonation sites achieved preferential search ranking above the legitimate documentation domain despite minimal content and a short operational history, raising questions about the mechanisms that produced that ranking.
Why Was the Sachkov Default Judgment Set Aside?
Seventh, default liability against Sergei Sachkov (Justice Myers, 5 October 2022) and a damages award of CAD 1,744,711 supported by expert accounting evidence (21 December 2022) were set aside by Justice Merritt in May 2023 on the basis of an endorsement containing clear chronological impossibilities and misattributions of evidence, after which leave to appeal was refused.
What Did the OIC Final Report Hold?
Eighth, an independent oversight body, the Office of the Information Commissioner, found the complaint well founded on CSIS’s improper withholding of page 1 of the responsive records (OIC file 5820-01949, final report 15 April 2026), and upheld CSIS’s remaining exemptions under s. 13(1) (information obtained in confidence from a foreign state or international organization of states), s. 15(1), s. 16(1)(b), and s. 16(1)(c). That record stands alongside the positions taken in the Attorney General’s Defence.
Each of these eight points is grounded in contemporaneous documents, forensic records, court filings, or official reports. None requires acceptance of any ultimate theory of liability. Collectively, they explain why the Equibit cases continue to raise questions that extend beyond the fortunes of a single company and touch on the reliability of institutional process itself.
Place in the Equibit Lawsuit
These eight points sit across the four Ontario files. In CV-20-00645492-0000, the Attorney General of Canada has a Defence on file. Default liability and damages against Sergei Sachkov were set aside in May 2023, leave to appeal was denied, and that conduct is the subject of Canadian Judicial Council complaint 26-0478. The claims against Marc Godard (CV-26-00015305-0000) and Nathan Wosnack and Ubitquity, LLC (CV-26-00017856-0000) were issued in 2026. The technical record is collected in Seven Documented Technical Attacks Against Equibit and Chris Horlacher, and the access-to-information record in Five Things the OIC Final Report Established.
Further Reading
- Seven Documented Technical Attacks Against Equibit and Chris Horlacher
- Five Things the OIC Final Report Established That Contradict CSIS’s Position
- Complaint Filed with the Canadian Judicial Council Against Justice Loretta P. Merritt
- Six Key Facts About the Impersonation Websites
- De-Banking and Institutional Pressure: The Systematic Financial Sabotage of Chris Horlacher
- Statement of Claim Against CSIS: The Opening Shot in the Fight for Accountability
