Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2017-04-12 Docket: C62663 Panel: Doherty, MacFarland and Rouleau JJ.A.

Parties

Between

Manoucher Baradaran, Fariba Baradaran, Saba Baradaran, by her litigation guardian, Manoucher Baradaran and Sama Baradaran, by her litigation guardian, Manoucher Baradaran

Appellant (Plaintiff)

and

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, as represented by the Attorney General of Ontario, Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company (LawPRO), Friedman Law Firm, Patrick Bakos, Real Estate Counsel represent [JOHN DOE], Dr. Karam Ramzy and Church Yonge Animal Clinic (Tenant)

Respondents (Defendants)

Counsel

Manoucher Baradaran, appearing in person

Baaba Forson and Eric Wagner, for Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario

Justin W. Anisman, for LawPRO

Patrick Bakos, for the Friedman Law Firm

Hearing and Lower Court Decision

Heard: April 6, 2017

On appeal from: the decision of Justice Thomas R. Lederer of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 27, 2016.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] We see no basis upon which to interfere with the judgment below.

[2] As the motion judge observed, the procedures set out in the "manual" do not have the force of law. Failure to comply with parts of the manual does not "void" the sale. In any event, it is far from clear that this was a "commercial" property to which the statement in the manual would apply.

[3] There is no merit to the bias argument. The passage quoted in the appellants' factum (para. 21) to support the bias claim is an entirely appropriate exchange between the appellant and the motion judge.

[4] The appellant submits that there was no auction. He relies on the absence of any reference to the auction on the website of the company responsible for conducting the auction. The motion judge had direct evidence that the auction occurred from a person who was at the auction. He was entitled to accept that evidence.

[5] The appellant had ample notice of the sale (two months). The motion judge had no evidence that the sale was improvident apart from the appellant's affidavit. The motion judge was entitled to reject the appellant's "bald" assertions as to the value of the property.

[6] The fresh evidence is not admissible. The appellant could have produced the material before the motion judge. We see no reason to admit it now.

[7] The appeal is dismissed.

[8] The respondents have made submission on costs. The appellant declined to make any submissions. Costs to each of the respondents in the amount of $1,000, "all in".