James D'arcy Stuart Porter

The Co-Respondents, Reza Dadras and Nasrin Hakimi (the "Parents-in-law"), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims made against them by the Applicant, Hossein Mehdian.

Hossein sought, among other things, a declaration of a 50% beneficial interest in a property (the "BP Property") held by the Parents-in-law, alleging unjust enrichment and seeking a constructive or resulting trust based on his and Katayoun's (his spouse and the Parents-in-law's daughter) monetary and non-monetary contributions.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, particularly due to the lack of evidence from Katayoun and the need for credibility assessments regarding the alleged contributions and mutual understanding.

However, the court granted the Parents-in-law's preliminary motion to strike certain inflammatory paragraphs from Hossein's Application and granted leave for Hossein to withdraw an erroneous spousal support claim against the Parents-in-law.

The court also addressed the admissibility of late-disclosed documents and the limitation period defence, finding both raised issues for trial.

Mid-trial, the accused, Siavash Norouzian, brought a motion to re-open the defence case to call a new expert for phone analysis and to recall Detective Gazey, a Crown witness.

This application arose after issues concerning the reliability of initial expert evidence and *Browne v. Dunn* concerns were raised by the Crown.

The court granted the defence permission to call a new expert and recall Detective Gazey, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The court declined to call the expert itself or order the Crown to cover the expert's fees, instead inviting a funding application.

The applicants sought approval under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act for a sale of substantially all of their assets following a court‑approved sales and investor solicitation process.

The court considered the statutory factors in s. 36 of the CCAA, including the fairness and reasonableness of the process, the role of the monitor, consultation with creditors, and the adequacy of the consideration.

A late competing bid was rejected to preserve the integrity of the court‑approved sales process.

The court also addressed priority issues involving a DIP lender, secured creditors, and potential claims to HST refunds under the Financial Administration Act.

The proposed transaction and distribution scheme were approved as fair and reasonable in the circumstances.