Ansarian v. Tavasoli, 2012 ONSC 6433
CITATION: Ansarian v. Tavasoli, 2012 ONSC 6433
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 388/11
DATE: 20121114
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
FARIBORZ ANSARIAN Plaintiff (Respondent)
– and –
ALIREZA TAVASOLI Defendant (Appellant)
In Person
François Sauvageau, for the Defendant (Appellant)
HEARD at Toronto: November 14, 2012
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GRACE J. (orally)
[1] On July 15, 2011 and after a spirited trial, Deputy Judge C. W. Kilian granted judgment in the plaintiff’s favour in the principal amount of $9,300, interest and costs (the “Judgment”). The judgment appears to have been granted against both a corporate (Persia Express Ltd.) and individual (Alireza Tavasoli) defendant.
[2] The appellant’s primary argument is that any judgment should have been restricted to the corporate defendant, if granted at all, since a $9,300 cheque which formed the basis for the claim was drawn on its account. The appellant submitted that the decision and resulting judgment are in error because the Deputy Judge undertook no analysis before piercing the corporate veil.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I agree with the Deputy Judge’s conclusion that judgment against both defendants was warranted.
[4] On its face, this was a simple claim. Mr. Ansarian, the plaintiff, alleged he sold a Persian carpet to the defendants on August 25, 2010. The alleged sale was not documented. There was no bill of sale, receipt or written agreement. However, there were two cheques bearing that date. The first (Tab 2 of the Exhibit Book) was drawn by the individual defendant on the Royal Bank of Canada. It was payable to the plaintiff’s girlfriend, Ashley Ilchi. The second (not in the material filed though Mr. Sauvageau showed me a copy) was a cheque drawn on an account at the Toronto-Dominion Bank/Canada Trust in the name of the corporate defendant.
[5] At trial, the primary issue was whether there was a transaction at all. Mr. Ansarian and Mr. Ilchi provided details of a transaction that Mr. Tavasoli said never occurred. In fact, on several occasions Mr. Tavasoli said the carpet was “imaginary” (See pp.54, 80, 86 and 100 of the transcript).
[6] He alleged that the cheques in question were issued in the context of a loan which was arranged by an individual (Vahid Khorramnik) for whom Ms. Ilchi worked.
[7] Faced with these irreconcilable versions of events, the Deputy Judge rejected Mr. Tavasoli’s version and accepted the plaintiff’s claim.
[8] His reasons, (given orally at pp. 114-119 of the transcript), explain why. The Deputy Judge pointed to inconsistencies in Mr. Tavasoli’s evidence, found the explanation he gave lacked plausibility and pointed to the content of certain text messages (erroneously described as e-mails in the reasons), which did, indeed, support the conclusion Mr. Tavasoli was borrowing money to pay the plaintiff, rather than obtaining a loan with the plaintiff’s assistance or involvement.
[9] The Deputy Judge’s finding that there was a sale of a carpet was amply supported by the evidence. Having reached that conclusion, the purchase price was readily determinable – both cheques were for $9,300.
[10] The next issue was the identity of the purchaser. The evidence supported the conclusion there were two of them. Mr. Tavasoli had testified he was the sole owner of Persia Express Ltd. (see pp. 76-77 of the transcript).
[11] As noted he had signed two cheques: one in his personal capacity and one corporate cheque.[^1]
[12] Both were involved in the transaction. No evidence was led by Mr. Tavasoli which allowed the court to differentiate between them.
[13] Piercing the corporate veil would only have been necessary if the Deputy Judge had concluded the purchase was made by the corporation alone. However, the defendants denied that either of them entered into any transaction as buyer.
[14] Given the Deputy Judge’s rejection of that position, the issuance of two cheques by the defendants made it impossible for the court to know if the intended buyer was, as the appellant now contends, the corporation or whether the corporation was a co-buyer or advancing funds on behalf of the individual defendant.
[15] The inability of the court to differentiate was a product of the approach the defendants took to the trial. In my view, the conclusion the Deputy Judge reached was the only one available on the evidence – those involved in the transaction were buyers and therefore jointly and severally liable for the price that was never paid.
[16] The appeal is dismissed.
[17] Before ending, I should make a few more quick points:
(i) The appellant filed an affidavit. No motion to admit fresh evidence was brought. My decision has been reached having regard to the evidence at trial only;
(ii) The Exhibit book should, with respect, have contained the trial exhibits and nothing more;
(iii) Additional grounds were advanced in the Amended Amended Notice of Appeal including a reasonable apprehension of bias and other errors of law. Those arguments were not pursued during the appeal.
[18] Mr. Ansarian acknowledged he did not forego any remuneration to attend on the appeal. In the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.
GRACE J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 14, 2012
Date of Release: November 19, 2012
CITATION: Ansarian v. Tavasoli, 2012 ONSC 6433
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 388/11
DATE: 20121114
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
GRACE J.
BETWEEN:
FARIBORZ ANSARIAN Plaintiff (Respondent)
– and –
ALIREZA TAVASOLI Defendant (Appellant)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GRACE J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 14, 2012
Date of Release: November 19, 2012
[^1]: The first cheque payable to Ms. Ilchi was returned to Mr. Tavasoli. The second cheque was made payable to the plaintiff. The corporate defendant stopped payment on that cheque.