HEARING DIVISION

Date: February 12, 2026 Tribunal File No.: 25H-139

BETWEEN:

Shahryar Mazaheri Applicant

and -

Law Society of Ontario Respondent

Before: Paul Aterman (chair), Lubomir Poliacik, Michelle Richards Heard: January 6, 2026, by videoconference

Appearances: Applicant, self-represented Amanda Worley, for the respondent

Summary: MAZAHERI – Motion to Cancel or Vary Interlocutory Suspension –The Lawyer had previously been suspended on an interlocutory basis in connection with alleged fraudulent transactions , as the panel found that his integrity had been impugned and that an interlocutory suspension was needed to protect the public ‒ He brought a motion to cancel or vary the interlocutory suspension ‒ The panel found that he did not provide fresh evidence or show that there was a material change in circumstances ‒ The motion was dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION ON A MOTION TO VARY OR CANCEL AN INTERLOCUTORY SUSPENSION

1Paul Aterman (for the panel):– Shahryar Mazaheri (the applicant) acted in transactions in which Alicia Pogorelovsky is alleged to have been defrauded. In the summer of 2024, the Law Society requested that the Tribunal suspend the applicant’s licence on an interlocutory basis.

2On November 12, 2024, the Tribunal granted that request.¹ The Tribunal found that “Mr. Mazaheri’s integrity has been materially impugned”.² It concluded that restrictions on his licence would not sufficiently mitigate the risk of harm to the public.

3The applicant now requests that we cancel the interlocutory suspension, or vary its terms. In his oral submissions, he relied on his factum. The factum offers five reasons why we should grant his motion. These are that:

The Law Society concluded its investigation but has not brought forward allegations of misconduct.
The Law Society’s application to put his practice into trusteeship was dismissed in Ontario Superior Court.
He has brought forward fresh evidence that supports his claim that certain documents are authentic.
He has sworn an affidavit that addresses the concerns expressed by the panel that ordered an interlocutory suspension.
He has been suspended for over a year without incident.

4The Tribunal can cancel or vary an interlocutory suspension if there is fresh evidence or a material change in circumstances since the suspension was imposed.³ A material change in circumstances is one that would likely result in different terms, if it had been known when the Tribunal suspended the applicant’s licence.⁴

5Two steps are required to cancel or vary an interlocutory suspension. First, the applicant must produce fresh evidence or show that there has been a material change in circumstances. If he can do this, then the Law Society has the burden of showing that a suspension of the applicant’s licence continues to be necessary.⁵

6We deny his motion because he has not succeeded on the first step. None of the five grounds that he has put forward would likely result in a different order if that information had been available to the panel that issued the interlocutory suspension of his licence.

7We explain our reasons by first setting out the factual background that led to the suspension. Then we examine each of the five grounds he has put forward to cancel or vary that order.

WHAT LED TO THE INTERLOCUTORY SUSPENSION?

8In 2022, Ms. Pogorelovsky and her late husband were interested in investing in mortgages. A real estate broker, Samira Yousefi, helped them borrow $1,375,000. They thought they were going to invest in syndicated mortgages.

9Ms. Yousefi recommended that Ms. Pogorelovsky invest $850,000 in a syndicated first mortgage loan and $400,000 in a private first mortgage loan. This money was deposited in the respondent’s trust account. The transactions turned out to be a sham.

10Instead, Arash Missaghi, a known fraudster, gained control of the money through two companies that he controlled. He used the money to acquire outstanding mortgage interests in a property that was owned by another company that he controlled.

11The respondent and another licensee, Fred Yack, were involved as lawyers in the transactions. They are alleged to have acted with at least constructive knowledge of the fraud.

12Ms. Pogorelovsky and her husband did not see the returns they expected on their investments. In June 2024, when Pogorelovsky’s husband found out that he was the victim of fraud, he killed Missaghi and Yousefi, and then killed himself.

13The respondent did not deny that a fraud had occurred. He said that he had no knowledge of and no part in it. His position is that he always acted on the instructions of his then client, Yousefi.

14While the panel hearing the suspension motion had a lot of documentary evidence before it, it had no direct evidence:

Missaghi, Yousefi, and Pogorelovsky’s husband did not testify because they were all deceased.
The Law Society did not call Ms. Pogorelovsky as a witness. It introduced an affidavit that she swore in another proceeding and transcripts of her interviews by its investigators. The Law Society also called two investigators whose evidence was almost entirely hearsay.
Yack did not testify. He had consented to an interlocutory suspension of his licence.
Mr. Mazaheri did not testify, and gave no reason why. He introduced affidavits sworn by a lawyer who worked for his then counsel and an affidavit from another lawyer who worked for him.

15The panel noted that although much of the evidence before it would be inadmissible at a conduct hearing, it was admissible at an interlocutory suspension hearing.

16With limited evidence before it, the panel noted that it was difficult to be confident about what actually took place. Still, it found that:

There were reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Mazaheri would not honour his professional obligations to avoid assisting in fraud and to use his trust account properly. This posed a significant risk to the public.
Mr. Mazaheri’s integrity was also impugned. This put the administration of justice at risk.
Mr. Mazaheri was aware of Missaghi’s history as a fraudster. Mr. Mazaheri had no experience in syndicated mortgage transactions, and limited real involvement with the transaction. This could reasonably support a finding that he was wilfully blind to the fraud.
It was also reasonably possible that Mr. Mazaheri had been used as a dupe in the fraud. Had Mr. Mazaheri testified, the panel might have been able to come to a firmer conclusion. But he didn’t.
On the limited evidence before the panel, the test for an interlocutory suspension of his licence was met.

17As the reasons of the panel show, the facts of this case are complicated. It is not necessary for us to repeat them all here. In our discussion of the five grounds Mr. Mazaheri advances to cancel or vary the panel’s order, we only deal with the facts that are relevant to each ground.

THE RESPONDENT’S REASONS FOR CANCELLING OR VARYING THE ORDER

1. The investigation has concluded but there are no conduct allegations

18On August 28, 2025, counsel for the Law Society sent an email to Mr. Mazaheri that told him the investigation had concluded and was now being reviewed by counsel.

19Through his counsel, Mr. Mazaheri inquired about timelines and next steps.

20He argues that the Law Society’s inaction has left him in limbo, causing undue hardship to his clients, himself and his family.

21However, since Mr. Mazaheri filed his argument, the Law Society has started a conduct application. The notice of application was issued on November 25, 2025. This is about three months after the Law Society told him that it had concluded its investigation. This is the only change in circumstances on this point.

22As is clear from the reasons of the panel that issued the interlocutory suspension, the facts in this case are complex. A delay of three months in issuing the notice of application is not significant in the circumstances of this case.

23The applicant has not argued that the delay amounts to an abuse of process under the law. If he did, such an argument would obviously fail.

24The fact that the Law Society has now initiated a conduct proceeding would not result in a different order. If anything, it reinforces the original panel’s conclusion. This is why we dismiss this ground.

2. The court dismissed the Law Society’s trusteeship application

25After the Tribunal ordered an interlocutory suspension, the Law Society applied to Superior Court to appoint it as trustee for Mr. Mazaheri’s practice. Justice Myers firmly rejected the application. He said that an interlocutory suspension by the Tribunal was not a sufficient basis to wind down the respondent’s practice.

26Mr. Mazaheri argues that the decision of Myers J. is a material change in circumstances. He says that Myers J. found that:

There was no shortfall in Mr. Mazaheri’s trust accounts.
The Law Society had not shown why winding down Mr. Mazaheri’s practice was needed to prevent any harm that was not sufficiently covered by the interlocutory suspension.
There has been no change to Mr. Mazaheri’s trust accounts since the suspension.

27The applicant maintains that that these findings eliminate the risk to the public on which the interlocutory suspension order rests.

28We disagree. The reasons of Justice Myers deal only with whether the Law Society’s trusteeship application should be granted. This involved a different application under the Act, with a different legal test applied to a different evidentiary record. He said:

I am not called upon to reconsider the tribunal’s finding; nor would it be at all proper for me to consider doing so. The tribunal’s findings and rationales were clear.

29Justice Myers’ reasons do not touch on the basis that underlies the Tribunal’s decision to issue an interlocutory suspension. For this reason, they do not constitute a material change in circumstances. We dismiss this ground.

3. The new evidence fails the fresh evidence test

30In its reasons, the original panel questioned the authenticity of notes in the respondent’s file. It also questioned whether a genuine custodian agreement existed.

31Mr. Mazaheri has submitted metadata that he says proves his notes to file are authentic. He also provided a custodian agreement to a Law Society investigator after the panel had issued the interlocutory suspension. He says that this is fresh evidence. We now address both of these issues.

The metadata evidence about the respondent’s notes is not credible

32The original panel considered a typewritten document dated November 14, 2022. The document is apparently the respondent’s note of a call he had with Samira Yousefi on that date. It states:

Samira is acting as administrator of a mortgage investment on a syndicate agreement for Maxol Wealth Investments Inc., Vicomte Capital Inc., Astani Organization Inc. and Viscount Financial Corporation. This is a mortgage investment on two properties 200 Hymus and Pugsley Property (?) the details of which she will provide. The total amount of investment is $3.4 million and each investor will be contributing $850,000 into the syndicate mortgage. Fred Yack will be carrying out the mortgage transaction. Email addresses: [Email addresses redacted]⁶

33If the document is authentic, then it could support Mr. Mazaheri’s claim that he was acting on Yousefi’s instructions. The panel was not satisfied that it is authentic because:

It was produced late.
It is typewritten, unlike the handwritten notes in the rest of the file.
There was no reliable information as to its source.
Mr. Mazaheri could have, but did not testify, so he could not explain or be cross-examined on the document.

34Later in the reasons, the panel observes that Mr. Mazaheri’s then counsel emailed the Law Society on September 3, 2024. She notified the Law Society that the respondent had found two additional notes relevant to the case. A note apparently dated November 20, 2022 states:

Telephone call from Samira re Maxol. The Custodian agreement was signed by Maxol and funds can be dispersed as per the custodian agreement received w/maxol/Vadim. Samira will drop off the agreement at my office.

35The reference in this note to a custodian agreement could help Mr. Mazaheri because – if the custodian agreement is genuine – it might show that he had authority to act on Yousefi’s instructions.

36The respondent claims he has fresh evidence that demonstrates that the notes are authentic. He has appended to his affidavit a screenshot of seven files, presumably from his computer. The screenshot shows the names of the files, a date and time next to each title and information about the format of each file. Also appended are two typewritten notes dated “Nov/14” and one dated “November 20, 2022”.

37As we note above, under the Act and the Tribunal’s Rules, fresh evidence can support a motion to cancel or vary an interlocutory suspension. The Tribunal’s decisions adopt the common law test for fresh evidence – both in appeals to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division and on motions to cancel or vary an interlocutory suspension.

38Fresh evidence is evidence that existed at the time of the original hearing, but was not obtainable through due diligence.⁷ In addition, the evidence must be:

…relevant, credible and bears on a decisive or potentially decisive issue. In addition, it must, if believed, reasonably be expected to affect the result.⁸

39The information on the screenshot existed at the time the original panel heard the motion for an interlocutory suspension. We are prepared to assume – without deciding – that the screenshot was not obtainable through due diligence. This is because the respondent did not know that the panel would question the authenticity of the notes. He only found this out when he received the panel’s reasons. So we will assume it meets the first part of the test for fresh evidence.

40But it does not pass the second part. It is not credible. And even if believed, it would not reasonably be expected to affect the panel’s findings on the authenticity of the notes.

41The information appended to the respondent’s affidavit has not been analyzed by an expert who could provide an opinion as to whether the notes were actually generated by Mr. Mazaheri at the time he says they were created. It is nothing more than a list of files with dates next to them. Nothing tells us what the content of those files is, whether the content of the files corresponds to the dates, or whether the content of the files corresponds to the text of the three notes.

42Quite apart from whether the screenshot means anything at all, the original panel’s concerns were not limited to whether Mr. Mazaheri created these notes at the time or fabricated them after the fact. The panel also had concerns about why the notes were produced late, and why the November 14 note was typewritten, rather than handwritten. Mr. Mazaheri could have answered these and other questions if he had testified before the original panel.

43The evidence that Mr. Mazaheri refers to as metadata – the screenshot of seven files – does not meet the fresh evidence test. If the screenshot had been introduced into evidence at the original hearing, this would not have resulted in a different order. This is because the screenshot has a very low probative value in the absence of any expert evidence about the origin of the files displayed in the screenshot. But it is also because the panel’s concerns were not limited to whether Mr. Mazaheri had fabricated these notes after the fact.

The custodian agreement could have been obtained through due diligence

44Mr. Mazaheri maintains that a custodian agreement was evidence that he was entitled to act on the instructions of Yousefi with respect to Pogorelovsky’s money.

45On May 13, 2024, about two months before her death, Yousefi sent a copy of a document to her lawyer. It purports to be a custodian agreement dated November 20, 2022. Pogorelovsky denied that it was authentic – she said she had not ever seen or signed it.

46Mr. Mazaheri did not produce a custodian agreement at the hearing.

47The original panel doubted that the copy of the custodian agreement from Yousefi’s lawyer was genuine. It made the following comments in its reasons:

It is troubling that:

Mr. Mazaheri’s file does not include the administration and syndication agreement which he said in his letter of November 14, 2022 was the agreement on which he acted.
Mr. Mazaheri’s file did not include the custodian agreement which is said to have established the authority on which he acted in respect of the Skymark loans.
Mr. Mazaheri is said to have advised in his interview with the Law Society that a copy of the custodian agreement was brought to his office on November 18, 2022, but the copy of the agreement provided by Ms. Yousefi to her lawyer in 2024 is dated November 20, 2022.
The recently disclosed note dated November 20, 2022 was not originally produced to the Law Society. It is consistent with the copy of the custodian agreement provided by Ms. Yousefi to her lawyer in May 2024 but appears to be inconsistent with Mr. Mazaheri’s claim that he reviewed a copy of the custodian agreement on November 18, 2022.
The only copy of a purported custodian agreement was sent by Ms. Yousefi to her lawyer in May 2024.
Ms. Pogorelovsky denies the authenticity of the purported custodian agreement.

We do not have the benefit of evidence from Mr. Mazaheri on these matters.⁹

48Mr. Mazaheri has since found a document entitled Custodian Agreement in another file, one in which Pogorelovsky’s company (Maxol) was a lender on a mortgage transaction.

49This document is not fresh evidence, because it could have been obtained through due diligence at the time of the hearing. The custodian agreement is central to Mr. Mazaheri’s defence. He recalls having reviewed signed copies of it.

50If a critical document were missing from a client file, and a reasonable lawyer was firmly convinced that it existed, they would scour their office to find it. This is what due diligence requires.

51There is no evidence before us to show that Mr. Mazaheri did everything he reasonably could to locate the missing custodian agreement. All the while, it just happened to be sitting in a different file related to Pogorelovsky, the very person whose money he claimed to have authority to handle.

52The metadata evidence and the custodian agreement both fail the fresh evidence test. The former is not credible, and the latter could have been obtained through due diligence at the time of the hearing. This is why we dismiss this ground.

4. Mr. Mazaheri’s affidavit is not fresh evidence

53Mr. Mazaheri has filed an affidavit (dated September 22, 2025) and a supplementary affidavit (dated November 14, 2025) in support of his motion to cancel or vary the interlocutory suspension. He is prepared to be cross-examined on them. This, he says, would address the concerns the original panel had about the protection of the public and the administration of justice.

54Much of the affidavits consist of nothing more than an attempt to re-argue the case that the original panel decided. The affidavits also deal with three issues that post-date the decision of the original panel. These are the metadata, the custodian agreement, and the decision of Myers J. on the trusteeship application. We have dealt with those three issues above. We now address the remaining content.

55Mr. Mazaheri’s affidavits are not fresh evidence. They fail the due diligence test. This is because he made a deliberate decision not to give evidence before the original panel. He cannot use the motion to cancel or vary the interlocutory suspension as a vehicle to present his case in instalments – first by not testifying at the hearing on the interlocutory suspension and now by seeking to introduce affidavit evidence that would have been available at the time of the first hearing. This is why we dismiss this ground.

5. Mr. Mazaheri has been suspended for over a year without incident

56Mr. Mazaheri maintains that since the suspension he has conducted himself in accordance with his professional obligations. He provides very little in support of his argument on this point. There is one line in the September 22, 2025 affidavit:

I am unaware of any new investigations, and my accounts have shown no irregularities since my suspension.

57All that Mr. Mazaheri has established here is that he has conducted himself in a way that is expected of any licensee whose licence has been suspended on an interlocutory basis, nothing more.

58Respecting the most basic professional obligations while suspended does not amount to a material change in circumstances. It is merely adhering to what is expected of every licensee. This is not information that, if known by the original panel, would lead to a different order.

59Before leaving this point, we address an aspect of Mr. Mazaheri’s conduct since the interlocutory suspension. We do this because Mr. Mazaheri cites his conduct since the interlocutory suspension as a reason to cancel or vary the suspension.

60In these proceedings, Mr. Mazaheri brought a motion that asked us to exclude some evidence submitted by the Law Society, and to disqualify ourselves on grounds of bias. Our reasons can be found at Mazaheri v Law Society of Ontario.¹⁰

61The factum he submitted was generated using artificial intelligence. It contained references to Tribunal decisions that don’t exist. There were also references to Tribunal decisions that do exist but don’t have the remotest connection to the legal propositions set out in the factum. Although they are rules of procedure, not substance, the respondent made repeated reference to the Tribunal’s Rules in support of points of substantive law. The factum was totally incoherent.

62Once this was discovered, Mr. Mazaheri admitted that he had used artificial intelligence and had not verified its output. We notified both parties that we could consider Mr. Mazaheri’s submission of a hallucinated factum in deciding this motion.

63The Law Society maintains that Mr. Mazaheri has failed to pass the first step of the test to cancel or vary the interlocutory suspension, so it is not necessary for us to address his negligent use of artificial intelligence. However, it submits that the way he used artificial intelligence calls his integrity into question.

64Mr. Mazaheri submits that it is unfair for us to consider this issue because he has not been given notice of it.

65Contrary to Mr. Mazaheri’s submission, we did notify him that his use of artificial intelligence could be considered in these proceedings.¹¹

66We agree with the Law Society that Mr. Mazaheri has not met the burden of showing that he has passed the first step of the test to cancel or vary an interlocutory suspension. This is a determination that we can make without considering his use of artificial intelligence.

67However, the original panel noted that, on the evidence before it, Mr. Mazaheri’s integrity was impugned. We consider that his use of artificial intelligence has only compounded that concern. In other words, his conduct since the interlocutory suspension was imposed has only made it less likely that the original order would be cancelled or varied.

68In that regard, we are advising both parties that we will consider his use of artificial intelligence when addressing the question of costs related to this motion.

CONCLUSION

69Mr. Mazaheri’s motion to cancel or vary the interlocutory suspension of his licence is dismissed.

70As the parties have agreed to deal with the issue of costs in writing, we direct the Law Society to file its materials relating to costs by February 26, 2026, and the applicant to file his materials by March 12, 2026.

Footnotes

Law Society of Ontario v Mazaheri and Yack, 2024 ONLSTH 132.
Above, paras 135-137.
Law Society Act, RSO 1990, c L.8, s 49.42 (the Act) and Rule 12.8 of the Law Society Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Law Society of Upper Canada v Ejidike, 2017 ONLSTH 87 at para 23.
Law Society of Ontario v White, 2018 ONLSTH 150 at para 17.
Mazaheri and Yack at para 62.
Afolabi v Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONCA 257 at para 50.
Re Preyra, 2003 CanLII 48959 at para 73 (ON LST).
Mazaheri and Yack, at paras 84-85.
2025 ONLSTH 186.
2025 ONLSTH 186 at para 44.

Shahryar Mazaheri v. Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONLSTH 33

Case Summary