Court File No. CV-21-00654929-0000
Equibit Group Ltd. v. Christian Saucier et al.
Related: Equibit’s Reply · The Assassination of Equibit
Several defendants in the 2021 action filed Statements of Defence and a counterclaim. The responses deny the claims. Equibit’s Reply is the answering pleading.
In the ongoing Ontario Superior Court case (CV-21-00654929-0000), several defendants have now filed their Statements of Defence and Counterclaim in response to Equibit Group Ltd., Chris Horlacher, and Marc Godard’s 2021 lawsuit. The responses largely deny the claims but provide remarkably little evidence to support their positions.
What the Defences Said
Abdelaziz Oulad Hadj and Bart de Groot (with Counterclaim)
They deny nearly all allegations and plead that any statements they made were written in good faith, without malice, and were “substantially true.” They portray themselves as unsophisticated investors who lost significant sums, with Bart claiming it was “more or less all of his life savings.”
David McFadzean (former Senior Software Engineer)
He denies most allegations, asserts that the Equibit software was open-source under the MIT license, and claims a “fixed node” was not required for the network to function. He states he shut down his node in early April 2019 after his employment ended.
What the Defences Did Not Attach
Despite the serious nature of the claims (breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, and libel causing millions in damages), the defendants have offered virtually no documentary evidence to rebut the plaintiffs’ detailed allegations. Their defences rely heavily on blanket denials and assertions of truth without supporting records, financial documentation, or technical proof.
In contrast, the plaintiffs have maintained detailed internal records, financial statements, audit trails, and technical logs throughout.
The GitHub Record
Public GitHub activity from the defendants during and immediately after the critical 2018–2019 period provides compelling contemporaneous evidence:
- Forking and Rebranding: Defendants and associates created forks of Equibit’s core repositories and rebranded the project (e.g., to “OCEAN” then “Tesseract”), directly supporting allegations of misappropriation of code and efforts to build competing or successor projects using Equibit’s work.
- Active Development During Collapse: Significant commits, pull requests, and issue activity continued from key individuals even as the original company was being wound down.
- Bounty and Governance Activity: Records show coordinated efforts around bounties, voting on project direction, and development tasks that align with claims of solicitation and diversion of resources.
These public records serve as strong contemporaneous evidence that is difficult to dispute.
Place in the Equibit Lawsuit
These are the incoming pleadings in CV-21-00654929-0000. The answer is Equibit Replies to Defendants’ Statements of Defence. The narrative file is The Assassination of Equibit.
This lawsuit addresses what plaintiffs describe as the internal sabotage phase that accelerated Equibit’s collapse — following regulatory pressure and coinciding with the technical and financial attacks documented elsewhere on this site. The contrast between the detailed evidence presented by the plaintiffs and the largely evidentiary-void defences is striking.
The case continues in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. As more discoveries and motions proceed, additional clarity is expected.
Court Documents:
We will continue providing factual updates as this important case progresses. Accountability requires transparency — especially when serious allegations of internal betrayal and defamation are involved.
If you believe companies deserve protection from insider sabotage and baseless public attacks, please share this post.
