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 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.

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.