With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". case, therefore, is applicable to the instant appeal. Johnson also asserts that Ventra Group’s assumption of Lability is evidenced by communications that he received on Ventra Group’s stationary, his dealings with a Ventra Group officer, and various financial statements. Even if these instances in fact reveal an implied assumption of liability, Dodd testified that a party has to show that a successor corporation expressly agreed to assume liability for the predecessor’s obligations in order to succeed on this claim under Ontario law. Johnson is unable to make this showing. Johnson further argues that Ontario common law prohibits a company from conveying its assets to another company in order to avoid a judgment. See Lockharts Ltd. v. Excalibur Holdings Ltd. (1987) 83 N.S.R.2d 181 (<HOLDING>). The court in Lockharts explained that

A: holding that in order for a plaintiff to file suit against the government on a contract claim in the court of federal claims a plaintiff must have either direct privity or thirdparty beneficiary status
B: holding the plaintiff could not defeat a summary judgment motion without offering any significant probative evidence tending to support the complaint
C: holding that the plaintiff could file suit against a successor investment company because it was used as a puppet to defraud the plaintiff and defeat its judgment
D: recognizing that the plaintiff has the right to file suit in any permissible county
C.