Court File and Parties

Court of Appeal for Ontario Date: 20240823 Docket: COA-23-CV-1376

Nordheimer, Gomery and Wilson JJ.A.

Between

Parnia Farokhian Applicant (Appellant)

and

Shahram Bonyanpour Respondent (Respondent)

Counsel: Altynay Teshebaeva, for the appellant The respondent not appearing

Heard and released orally: August 22, 2024

On appeal from the order of Justice Alexandre Kaufman of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 4, 2023.

Reasons for Decision

[1] The appellant raises three issues respecting the trial judge’s decision, reached after an uncontested trial. The first issue is that the respondent’s obligation to pay the appellant 110 gold coins, referred to as the Maher payment, ought not to have been included in the net family property calculation. We do not accept that submission. It is directly contrary to the conclusion of this court in Bakshi v. Hosseinzadeh, 2017 ONCA 838.

[2] The second issue is that the trial judge erred in not ordering an unequal division of net family property because of the short duration of the marriage and the failure of the respondent to disclose his assets. The trial judge addressed the first argument but not the second, likely because it does not appear from the transcript that it was argued before him. In any event, there was evidence before the trial judge regarding the respondent’s assets which were negligible. We do not see any error in the trial judge’s conclusion not to order an unequal division in light of that evidence. In that regard, this case is distinguishable from this court’s decision in Cohen v Cohen, 2024 ONCA 114.

[3] The third issue is the appellant’s request that the respondent be required to pay her the 110 gold coins. Assuming there would have been jurisdiction to so order, the trial judge was not required to accede to that request. Instead, he ordered the Canadian equivalent of the gold coins to be deducted from the equalization payment. That was an option open to the trial judge and was, in our view, a very practical way of resolving the issue.

[4] Finally, the appellant raises a procedural fairness issue suggesting that she was caught unaware that the trial judge would not accept her proposed NFP calculation. The trial judge was not obliged to accept that calculation regardless of the fact that it was not directly contested by the respondent.

[5] The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

“I.V.B. Nordheimer J.A.”

“S. Gomery J.A.”

“D.A. Wilson J.A.”