Hossein Niroomand

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a civil claim alleging that religious divorce documents had been fraudulently altered to include a waiver of rights to a marriage gift.

The court upheld the trial judge’s credibility findings and rejected arguments concerning corroboration, bias, waiver, and factual error.

The proposed fresh evidence did not relate to the central authenticity issue, could have been obtained with diligence before trial, and would not have affected the result.

The appeal was dismissed, with no appeal costs to one respondent and fixed costs awarded to another.

The plaintiffs, creditors of the bankrupt defendant, brought an action to set aside the conveyances of multiple real properties as fraudulent.

The defendant had transferred the properties to related individuals and shell corporations for nominal consideration shortly after defaulting on a business loan.

The court found that the defendant engaged in a pattern of dishonest conduct, including forging documents and manipulating trust declarations, to shield her assets from creditors.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the court held that the conveyances were fraudulent and void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The properties were ordered to be sold with proceeds distributed to the plaintiffs and the bankruptcy trustee.

The court considered a motion under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to approve a proposed settlement involving minors.

After reviewing the materials and a confidential report from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, the court expressed serious concerns about whether the proposed settlement served the minors’ best interests and about the handling of the litigation.

The court found that the existing litigation guardian, the children’s father, faced an inherent conflict of interest that affected objective decision‑making.

The court dismissed the motion for approval, ordered that the motion record and related investigative materials be sealed, and replaced the litigation guardian with the Office of the Children’s Lawyer pursuant to Rule 7.06(2).

The appellant, acting in person, brought a motion to remove the solicitors of record for the respondents on the appeal, alleging conflict of interest and misconduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support the serious allegations.

The court emphasized the importance of a litigant's right to counsel of choice and noted that removing counsel would cause prejudice to the respondents, who relied on their counsel's ability to communicate in Farsi.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action, the court received written submissions on costs.

The successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $64,000 each.

The self-represented plaintiff, despite being unsuccessful, also sought costs and raised numerous objections to the defendants' claims.

The court rejected the plaintiff's claim for costs but reduced the defendants' claims to account for their unsuccessful summary judgment motion, a late pleading amendment, and unrecoverable items.

The court fixed costs at $35,000 payable by the plaintiff to each of the two active defendants.

The plaintiff alleged that a religious divorce certificate and related registry entry were fraudulently altered after execution to insert a waiver of her contractual entitlement to a marriage gift contained in a marriage contract.

She sought declarations invalidating the waiver and damages exceeding $2 million.

After an eight‑day trial, the court rejected the allegation of fraud, finding on a balance of probabilities that the waiver of the marriage gift was present in the documents when signed and that the plaintiff’s subsequent conduct was inconsistent with her claim of later alteration.

The court also held that, even if fraud had been proven, the action would have been barred by applicable limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action was dismissed.

The moving party sought to quash a Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant regarding a trial judgment for damages arising from an unprovoked assault and a subsequent costs award.

The appellant argued the time to appeal ran from the formal entry of the judgment, not the date of the decisions.

The court held that time runs from the date of pronouncement, rendering the appeal out of time.

The court quashed the Notice of Appeal and declined to extend the time to appeal the merits decision due to lengthy delay and weak grounds.

However, the court granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal the costs decision, finding the delay brief and the proportionality of the costs arguable.