Esmaeil Mehrabi

The court heard competing motions by a court-appointed receiver and a third-party purchaser (BJC) regarding the sale of a commercial property.

The property was subject to a mortgage that fell into default, prompting the mortgagee to exercise its statutory power of sale and enter into an agreement with BJC.

Subsequently, a receiver was appointed over the mortgagor corporation in an oppression action and sought to sell the same property en bloc with another property to a different purchaser.

The court held that the receivership order under the Business Corporations Act and Courts of Justice Act did not suspend or supersede the mortgagee's pre-existing statutory power of sale under the Mortgages Act.

The receiver's motion to approve its sale was dismissed, and the mortgagee was permitted to complete its sale to BJC.

The plaintiff homeowner sued the defendant contractor for breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from a home renovation project, seeking damages for incomplete and deficient work.

The defendant counterclaimed for unpaid extra work.

The court found that the parties had a binding fixed-price contract for the initial scope of work and that the plaintiff had authorized specific extras.

The court concluded the plaintiff underpaid the defendant by $7,220.50 for the authorized extras, but also found the defendant liable for $10,731.46 in construction deficiencies.

Both the claim and counterclaim were allowed in part.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful motion for leave to examine a non-party pursuant to Rule 31.10.

The plaintiff claimed partial indemnity costs of $19,926.08, arguing the motion was necessary due to the non-party's refusal to cooperate.

The non-party opposed the costs award, contending that as a non-party he had no obligation to consent and that the relief sought was overly broad.

The court awarded costs to the plaintiff as the successful party, finding the motion was necessary and the non-party's lack of cooperation justified the motion.

Costs were fixed at $17,500 on a partial indemnity basis, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's administrative dismissal of an action for delay.

The action arose from a disputed power of sale process undertaken by the defendants as mortgagees in October 2014.

The plaintiff commenced the action in March 2015 seeking $300,000 in damages and an accounting.

Over nearly ten years, the action proceeded only through pleadings and exchange of affidavits of documents, with examinations for discovery never occurring.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the extensive litigation delay, failed to demonstrate a genuine intention to prosecute the action, and that significant prejudice resulted from the delay, including the death of a key witness with firsthand knowledge of the disputed events.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration and an Immediate Temporary Suspension Order (ITSO) against the appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its salesperson.

The appellants appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Registrar sought to extend the ITSO pending the hearing, citing the appellants' negative bank balances and failure to purchase extended warranties paid for by customers.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the appellants' financial position posed a risk to the public, but concluded that the failure to provide purchased warranties and the attempt to retain the funds justified extending the ITSO in the public interest.

The plaintiff bank moved for summary judgment against an individual defendant to recover approximately $58,000 outstanding on a corporate line of credit and credit card.

The individual defendant, who was the sole shareholder of the corporate defendant, raised the defence of non est factum, asserting that he was not fluent in English and did not understand he was signing personal guarantees.

The court found that the loan and guarantee documents were ambiguous and that the defendant's unchallenged affidavit evidence raised a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the applicant's motion for partition and sale of a jointly owned property, ordering that 50% of the proceeds be released to the applicant and that she be reimbursed for funeral and carrying costs.

The respondents' objections, including claims of loans and entitlement to a greater share, were rejected due to lack of evidence and legal standing.

The court found the applicant was entitled to her share as a 50% title owner, and the respondents' claims, if any, would be against the estate, not the applicant's share.

The plaintiff, Extend Financial Ltd., sought summary judgment against the defendant, Saeid Naeimi-Manesh, for default on a Home Equity Line of Credit and associated mortgage.

The defendant denied entering the mortgage, alleging fraud and collusion by his former employer and solicitor.

The court found no credible defense, confirming the mortgage was duly signed, funds advanced, and default occurred.

The defendant's claims were determined to be against third parties, not the plaintiff.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff, along with costs.

The applicant, Mehdi Zarrin-Mehr, brought a motion seeking the appointment of a professional estate trustee during litigation (ETDL) for the estate of Sadollah Zarrinmehr, alleging hostility, lack of transparency, and disregard for his interests by the current estate trustee, Soraya Shokrai.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant's allegations were not sufficiently substantiated and that the estate was straightforward, making the additional costs of a professional ETDL unnecessary and detrimental to the beneficiaries.

The court emphasized that the existing Restated No Dealings Order adequately protected the estate assets.

This endorsement addresses a motion brought by the respondent, Soraya Shokrai, seeking to dismiss the applicant, Mehdi Zarrin-Mehr's, challenge to the validity of a 1999 will.

The applicant, the deceased's son from a previous marriage, alleged suspicious circumstances surrounding the will's execution, including missing pages, inconsistent numbering, and a discrepancy in the stated number of pages.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding that the applicant had met the minimal evidentiary threshold required to call the will's validity into question.

The court emphasized its inquisitorial role in probate matters and the need for formal proof of the will given the anomalies and the subscribing witnesses' evidence.

The decision allows the applicant to proceed with discovery, including seeking production from lawyers involved in the estate.

This endorsement addresses costs following a partially successful Mareva injunction motion.

The Plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs against the Defendant Koukia, having succeeded in part against her but failing against the other defendants (Estate and PersTile Inc.).

The court found Koukia's conduct reprehensible and her evidence untruthful, justifying substantial indemnity costs.

However, considering the Plaintiffs' partial success and the limited scope of the injunction obtained, the court awarded one-third of the Plaintiffs' legal fees and half of their disbursements, totaling $7,913.79, to be paid by Koukia within 30 days.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Leiper J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The responding parties requested costs but failed to provide a Costs Outline as required, resulting in no costs being awarded.

The Plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction against their deceased son's estate, his company, and his common-law spouse, alleging fraud and misappropriation of funds.

The court dismissed the motion against the Estate and the company due to insufficient evidence and procedural issues (lack of appointed estate trustee, uncorroborated evidence under the Evidence Act).

However, the motion was granted in part against the common-law spouse, Rounak Farrokhi Koukia, specifically for e-transfers made from the Plaintiffs' accounts after the son's death, finding a strong prima facie case of unjust enrichment and a real risk of dissipation.

The Mareva injunction against Ms. Koukia was limited to $40,000.

The defendants brought a motion under s. 44 of the Construction Act for the return of monies deposited into court, relying on an adjudicator's interim determination that no monies were owed to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that an interim adjudication decision alone is insufficient to warrant the release of security.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, holding that an adjudicator's determination, while admissible, is an interim decision and not a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that the lien claim no longer requires security under s. 44(5) of the Act.

The court emphasized that releasing security based solely on an interim adjudication would undermine the Act's purpose of providing security for lien claimants.

The plaintiff in a passing off action brought a motion for further production of the defendant's documents, including financial statements, tax returns, sales records, and website traffic data, to assist its expert in calculating damages.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the defendant's financial statements and general ledgers, subject to redactions for relevance and commercial sensitivity.

The court denied the requests for tax returns, monthly sales totals, salary details, sales forecasts, and website traffic data, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish their relevance or existence.

The court also granted the plaintiff leave to amend its statement of claim and extended the time to set the action down for trial.

The Plaintiff brought a motion seeking various forms of relief, primarily to determine if Mareva injunctions ordered against him could continue post-judgment in aid of execution, or to have them set aside or varied.

The Plaintiff argued that the injunctions were causing severe financial and mental stress and that there was no longer a justifiable reason for their continuation after the trial judgment.

The Defendants opposed, asserting a continued risk of asset dissipation.

The court found that the injunctions remained in effect post-judgment and that the Defendants had met the burden of demonstrating a real risk of asset dissipation due to the Plaintiff's past conduct and non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The court dismissed the Plaintiff's motion to set aside or vary the injunctions, including requests for funds for living expenses and legal fees, finding insufficient evidence of lack of other assets.

The court also clarified that Mareva injunctions can persist despite an appeal and automatic stays of execution, as they serve a protective function.

The appellants appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment.

The Divisional Court found that while the Master failed to properly apply the four-part test for setting aside a default judgment, the record demonstrated that the appellants failed to move promptly and lacked a reasonable explanation for their delay.

The court assessed the proposed defence as weak and concluded that the interests of justice did not warrant setting aside the default judgment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant tenant, Tabriz Persian Cuisine Inc., appealed a trial decision upholding the respondent landlord's refusal to consent to a lease assignment.

The landlord, Highrise Property Group Inc., had refused consent primarily due to the tenant's unauthorized patio, which constituted a breach of the lease, and also sought the discontinuation of a parallel lawsuit.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's finding that the landlord's refusal was reasonable, as the tenant's failure to rectify the lease breach provided a sufficient basis for refusal, even though the demand to discontinue the lawsuit was an unreasonable collateral purpose.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity scale following a motion by the defendants for leave to amend their defence and a cross-motion by the plaintiff to strike paragraphs.

The defendants argued that success was divided and parties should bear their own costs.

The court found the plaintiff was substantially successful, as every disputed paragraph was struck in whole or in part, necessitating substantial amendments by the defendants.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $6,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from an intimate relationship involving sex trade activity, drug use, assault allegations, and probation breaches, the court applied the W.D. framework to assess conflicting testimony from the complainant and the accused.

The court rejected the defence request for a Vetrovec caution and held that no similar fact application was required because the assault evidence formed part of the alleged pattern of control, direction or influence relevant to the prostitution-related counts.

The accused was acquitted of sexual assault, exploitation, and procuring, but convicted of receiving a material benefit from sexual services, one assault limited to the hallway incident on February 4, 2018, and three breach of probation counts based on guilty pleas.

The court held that the parties were not in a legitimate living arrangement under s. 286.2(4)(a), characterizing the relationship as parasitic for purposes of the material benefit offence.