Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-19-58240-00 Superior Court of Justice

Applicant(s): Farhad Agha Baba Khani Counsel: CJ A. KHANLARBIG

Respondent(s): Golbarg Araghi Counsel: VALOIS P. AMBROSINO

Date: July 27, 2020

Endorsement

[1] The Respondent moves by 14B Motion found at Volume 2, Tab 6 of the Continuing Record for an Order to continue the parties’ motions last heard by me on February 27, 2020 by video or telephone conference or, in the alternative, that the motions be set down for an in-person hearing on the next available date.

[2] The Applicant responds, at some length, that the Respondent is trying to portray the outstanding motions as urgent, that the matters are pressing but that the Applicant would be prejudiced if denied the opportunity of commencing and completing his argument in person rather than by virtual technology.

[3] Not to be undone, the Respondent files a Reply affidavit. This offends Rule 14(11.6) of the Family Law Rules and will not be considered by me.

[4] By virtue of the implementation of the Notice to the Profession and Litigants for Central East Region dated June 26, 2020, there is no longer any requirement for a moving party to establish that a matter is either urgent or pressing. I note that the 14B Motion was filed June 24, 2020 under the prior Notice. The issues before me have been case conferenced by Justice Douglas on August 8, 2019 wherein the Court scheduled a one-hour motion for October 23, 2019 on the issue of the enforceability of the alleged agreement, this date being subject to the availability of Mr. Ambrosino who contemplated another attendance in another court on that date.

[5] The Endorsement Brad of the Record does not indicate what happened on October 23 but the matter proceeded before me on January 8, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. and was adjourned to February 27, 2020 when it was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. to be completed on March 26. That date was adjourned by virtue of the court’s suspension of in-court services due to COVID-19. As I write this, I am wondering what happened to the Order of Justice Douglas that allowed the parties’ a one-hour motion to argue the issue? I am likely to answer that rhetorical question when I determine the entitlement (if any) to costs at the conclusion of the argument.

[6] The arguments before me require a determination as to whether or not there is a binding agreement between the parties that would preclude the enforcement of the Judgment of Justice Penny, in Toronto’s Commercial Court, allowing for the sale of a commercial property currently occupied by the Applicant. At issue, as well, and not to be overlooked is the effect of the Escrow provisions in the Agreement and whether or not those provisions have been lifted.

[7] Under the current Notice to the Profession, long motions are prohibited as are in-person attendances for motions. I recognize it would now be unfair to the Applicant if the Respondent receives a further 15 minutes to wrap up her argument and then I restricted the Applicant in his argument. That issue is further complicated by the Court’s rescheduling difficulties resulting from the adjournment of in excess of 1600 scheduled matters since March 17, 2020.

[8] The parties have now added another point of disagreement as to whether or not the Motion should proceed in person or by a virtual Hearing. Currently the Court is able to schedule a total of three hours of in-court time per day to comply with health concerns. It is unlikely that this long motion will be scheduled prior to late October in any event. The parties are required to comply with the most recent Notice to secure a new date and I will then meet with the Trial Coordinator in an attempt to secure a mutually-convenient time to conclude the Motions.

[9] Prior to rescheduling the Motions, however, I am requiring the parties to have a further Case Conference before Justice Bennett at the earliest opportunity to review their respective positions on the two outstanding issues being the validity of the Agreement and the effect of the Escrow Agreement. The parties shall also discuss their dispute as to whether the Motion proceeds in person or not. There may be valid reasons for one party not wishing an in-court Hearing that I do not want to determine as the Motions Judge. In the interim, upon receipt of the parties’ Family Assignment Court template, a new date will be assigned.

[10] At the time of completing this Endorsement, I have ascertained that Justice Bennett has availability to hear a Conference, by Zoom, on August 17 at 11:30 a.m., August 18 at 9:30 a.m. or August 19 at 2:00 p.m. These time slots will be placed on hold for one week to enable the parties to agree on a date and schedule accordingly. If none of these dates are convenient then the parties will have to arrange the next mutually-convenient date.

The Honourable Justice Kaufman