The sixth page of the court Judgment reads as follows:
“Exhibit No. 15 was a document from TD which showed the chargeback dispute in the amount of $4,341.15 USD. The determination that the transaction was fraudulent was made by the issuing bank in the United States and notice of same was given to TD, the merchant's bank.”

Exhibit No. 15 was the FABRICATING EVIDENCE of the chargeback dispute. Exhibit No. 15 was a document from TD which did not show the chargeback dispute. Where was the chargeback dispute shown? (At best, it can only be said to be TD internal bank Transaction Info, and it has been altered in many places)

The Defendants must know the chargeback dispute and the chargeback dispute notice, but the Defendants deliberately described a document of FABRICATING EVIDENCE and altered in many places from TD which did not show the chargeback dispute as the chargeback dispute in the Court, adding crime to crime.

The Defendants delivered Exhibit No. 15 of the FABRICATING EVIDENCE of the chargeback dispute to the Plaintiff in a temporary location on September 13, 2018 20:30 pm, 3 years and 3 months later after the Defendants held the Plaintiff’s business account fund and personal accounts fund, 29 days before the court trial (the first trial date is October 12, 2018).

More details as follows:
1. TD froze my personal accounts (Canadian dollar account and US dollar account) on July 21, 2015. TD also froze my business account on July 21, 2015 and closed my business account later. After TD froze my personal accounts and business account, I contact TD more than 20 times and no one from TD mention Exhibit No. 15 of the FABRICATING EVIDENCE of the chargeback dispute. I never know the chargeback dispute, and also I never receive the Chargeback Dispute Notes.
2. At the same time, in E-mail chain between Mr. Yam and Mr. Hu, they didn’t mention Exhibit No. 15 of the FABRICATING EVIDENCE of the chargeback dispute, and also they didn’t mention to send Exhibit No. 15 of the FABRICATING EVIDENCE of the chargeback dispute to Plaintiff(please see the attachment).
3. “Mr. Prashad also provided Exhibit No. 14, a letter from TD to Mr. Zhang’s corporation, dated November 18, 2014(the fifth page of the court Judgment)”, this letter didn’t mention Exhibit No. 15 of the FABRICATING EVIDENCE of the chargeback dispute. (Please see the attachment)
4. TD didn’t mention Exhibit No. 15 of the FABRICATING EVIDENCE of the chargeback dispute in a Defendant’s Claim issued by TD (the second page of the court Judgment reads as follows: At one time, TD had also issued a Defendant’s Claim, but as Mr. Skinner advised, TD was not pursuing its Defendant’s claim and it was withdraw).
5. On May 26 2016, a hearing (the first Settlement Conference) was held and the following order made:
“The Defendant will provide to the Plaintiff a chargeback Dispute Notice and the manner in which it was delivered to the Plaintiff……on or before July 26, 2016.”(Please see the attachment)
But in fact, The Defendant DID NOT PROVIDE to the Plaintiff a chargeback Dispute Notice and the manner in which it was delivered to the Plaintiff……on or before July 26, 2016.
On August 11, 2016 the letter the Defendant gave the Plaintiff said:
“Please be advised that in regards to The Toronto-Dominion Bank’s requirement to provide a Chargeback Dispute Notice, the Toronto-Dominion Bank is unable to provide the Chargeback Dispute Notice.”(Please see the attachment)
6. TD didn’t mention Exhibit No. 15 of the FABRICATING EVIDENCE of the chargeback dispute at the second Settlement Conference on Sep. 22, 2016(please see the attachment).
7. TD didn’t mention Exhibit No. 15 of the FABRICATING EVIDENCE of the chargeback dispute in the Settlement Offer provided by Defendants dated August 11, 2018 (please see the attachment).
8. TD didn’t mention Exhibit No. 15 of the FABRICATING EVIDENCE of the chargeback dispute when I asked Miss Shirley Zhang (TD Financial Services Representative) to contact TD for the reason of froze my accounts.
9. The Plaintiff saw the Exhibit No. 15 of the FABRICATING EVIDENCE of the chargeback dispute (at best, it can only be said to be TD internal bank Transaction Info, and it has been altered in many places) for the first time in the files of Court delivered by Lawyer Harry Skinner of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP (It turns out that Lawyer Harry Skinner was involved in this criminal activity of Fabricating Evidence and fraud) on September 13, 2018 20:30 pm, 3 years and 3 months of this Transaction date later when the case enters the Litigation Stage, and 29 days before the court trial date(the first trial date is October 12, 2018).

In short, Exhibit No. 15[the chargeback dispute] was a complete FABRICATING EVIDENCE.
Exhibit No. 15[the chargeback dispute] was fully complies with FABRICATING EVIDENCE under section of the Criminal Code of Canada (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 section 137).
Exhibit No. 15[the chargeback dispute] was fully complies with FRAUD under section of the Criminal Code of Canada (R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 380R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 541994, c. 44, s. 251997, c. 18, s. 262004, c. 3, s. 22011, c. 6, s. 2)