Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-603484 DATE: 20201130

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: ANNE WOODS, Plaintiff -and- ABBAS PETER JAHANGIRI, VICTOR SRADJOV, SEEMA PODDAR, JOHN DOE, JANE DOE and DOE CORPORATIONS, Defendants

BEFORE: Sanfilippo, J.

COUNSEL: Norman Groot, Lawyer for the Plaintiff No one appearing for the Defendants as the Plaintiff proceeded without notice

HEARD: November 30, 2020

Endorsement

[1] The Plaintiff, Anne Woods, brought this Motion today against the Defendant Abbas Jahangiri (the “Responding Defendant”), without notice, for broad injunctive relief, including the following:

(a) An interim and interlocutory Mareva injunction, restraining the Responding Defendant from disposing of or dealing with any assets, worldwide, that have a value up to $327,000, pending final disposition of this Action, or engaging in any transaction that has the effect of transferring assets out of Ontario, or instructing anyone from doing so on his behalf, and

(b) As an ancillary order to the Mareva injunction, that the Responding Defendant prepare and provide to counsel for the Plaintiff, within seven days, a sworn declaration describing the nature, value and location of all his assets, worldwide; and

(c) As an ancillary order to the Mareva injunction, that the Responding Defendant provide an accounting of the transfers affecting funds received from the Plaintiff; and

(d) An Order that a non-party, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, produce to the Plaintiff information and documents to confirm where three bank drafts (April 30, 2016, June 13, 2016 and June 17, 2016) provided by the Plaintiff to the Responding Defendant were deposited.

[2] Although this relief is broad in scope, the urgent nature of the Motion is focused on a single pending transaction. The Plaintiff submitted that Mr. Jahangiri is in the process of selling a property located in Hensall, Ontario (the “Hensall Property”), and that this sale is pending to close today. The Plaintiff submitted that there is a risk of dissipation of the sale proceeds unless a Mareva injunction is issued requiring their preservation.

[3] This Motion was brought without notice to the Responding Defendant. I heard submissions on the issue of notice and have determined that the Plaintiff shall provide notice to the Responding Defendant, Mr. Jahangiri of this Motion. I will explain why.

[4] Advancing proceedings before the Court affecting the legal rights of persons not before the Court should only occur where there is good reason to believe that the defendant, if given notice, will act to frustrate the process of justice before the motion can be decided, or where there is simply no times or means to provide notice: Robert Half Canada, at paras. 30-38; Sprott Resources Lending Corp (Re), 2013 ONSC 4350, at paras. 11-12. These principles are reflected in Rules 37.07(1), (2) and (3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[5] I recognize that a motion for a Mareva injunction can proceed without notice where notice to a party has the potential to defeat the purpose of the Mareva injunction by the risk of the respondent taking steps to frustrate the relief sought prior the moving party having had an opportunity to argue the motion. However, this risk is not present here for two reasons: (i) in an email sent on November 27, 2020, the moving party Plaintiff notified Mr. Jahangiri of her intention to advance a motion to preserve the proceeds from the sale of the Hensall Property, threatening to do so without notice (Supplemental Motion Record p. 134, Affidavit of Daina Slenys sworn November 27, 2020, Exhibit Q); (ii) there is no evidence that the funds from the sale of the Hensall Property will be available to Mr. Jahangiri until its closing today, such that the risk of steps to dissipate the proceeds requires first that the Hensall Property sale transaction be completed.

[6] Regarding the second criteria set out in the case law and in Rule 37.07(2), the Plaintiff has demonstrated an ability to serve the Responding Defendant with material, as she did both in person and electronically in the period just before this Motion, November 25-26, 2020, in regard to service on Mr. Jahangiri of a Notice of Examination.

[7] I thereby direct that the Plaintiff forthwith provide notice of this Motion to the Responding Defendant, Mr. Jahangiri and to the counsel said to have been retained on his behalf. In providing notice of this Motion to Mr. Jahangiri and any lawyer retained on his behalf, the Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide the video coordinates for connection into the virtual courtroom in which this Motion is being heard, by video conference.

[8] I am mindful of the urgency resulting from the pending sale of the Hensall Property today, and the impact of this pending closing on the Plaintiff’s claim for Mareva injunctive relief, including the principles underlying Rule 37.07(3): “Where the delay necessary to effect service might entail serious consequences, the court may make an interim order without notice.”

[9] By reason of this urgency, I have recessed this Motion until 2:00 pm today, to allow the Plaintiff time to provide notice to Mr. Jahangiri as well as to any counsel identified by Mr. Jahangiri to have been retained or consulted on his behalf, and to allow the Responding Defendant an opportunity to attend and be heard, directly or through counsel.

[10] This Motion for Mareva injunctive relief is recessed until 2:00 pm today and will continue then by video conference.

Sanfilippo, J.

Date: November 30, 2020