Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-603484

DATE: 20201209

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 and Ashley Ferguson, Lawyers for the Plaintiff Scott Rosen, for the Defendant Abbas Peter Jahangiri

HEARD

By Videoconference: December 8, 2020

ENDORSEMENT

[1] By endorsement issued November 30, 2020, I granted a Mareva Order in favour of the Plaintiff, Anne Woods, against the Defendant, Abbas Peter Jahangiri (the “Responding Defendant”), requiring the preservation, by the lawyer acting on behalf of this Defendant in the sale of property known municipally as 81 Nelson Street, Hensall, Ontario (the “Hensall Property”), of the adjusted net sale proceeds resulting from the sale of the Hensall Property up to the maximum amount of $327,000: Woods v. Jahangiri, 2020 ONSC 7404, at para. 41. I will refer to the funds held by this Mareva Order as the “Preserved Funds”. This interim interlocutory injunction was ordered to be in effect until December 8, 2020, at 4:30 pm, at which time it would expire, subject to further Order of this Court.

[2] This matter returned for hearing on December 8, 2020. The Responding Defendant retained litigation counsel, who prepared a Responding Record in support of his position that the Mareva Order should be set aside. The Responding Record was not uploaded to the on-line document folder in time for the hearing, notwithstanding the efforts of the Responding Defendants.

[3] The Plaintiff sought an adjournment of this motion to allow her an opportunity to file reply materials and to cross-examine the Responding Defendant on his affidavit evidence. The Responding Defendant sought to proceed with his submissions that the Mareva Order should be set aside and the Preserved Funds should be released.

[4] As the Responding Record was not before the Court, the only evidence in the record was that filed for the motion on November 30, 2020, as supplemented by the Plaintiff with evidence of developments in the interim. Based on this evidence, I order that the Mareva Order remain in place until this motion can be heard on a complete record, to allow for time for delivery of Reply materials and any cross-examinations, subject to an interim payment to the Responding Defendant from the Preserved Funds, as I will now explain.

[5] The Responding Defendant submitted that he requires certain of the Preserved Funds for living expenses, for legal fees and for his ongoing work in the redevelopment of real estate holdings. I was satisfied that a payment should be made to the Responding Defendant from the Preserved Funds pending the full hearing of this motion. The Plaintiff agreed that a “living allowance’ should be paid out of the Preserved funds but did not initially agree with the amount sought by the Responding Defendant. After having an opportunity to confer, the parties agreed that the amount of $70,000 be released to the Responding Defendant from the Preserved Funds. I so order, on the consent of the parties.

[6] In furtherance of the release of $70,000 of the preserved Funds to the Responding Defendant, I order that the real estate solicitor holding these funds, Robert Kligerman, may immediately release $70,000.00 from the preserved Funds to the defendant Abbas Peter Jahangiri or as the Responding Defendant may direct.

[7] I order further that the Responding Defendant may request and apply for further funds, by requesting the convening of a case conference (Rule 50.13) or at Motion.

[8] In furtherance of the adjournment of this Motion to allow this Motion to be fully developed for argument, a timetable was required. After having an opportunity to confer, the parties agreed on the following timetable, which I order be implemented on their consent:

(a) The Plaintiff’s reply record, and any supplemental affidavit of the Responding Defendant, shall be delivered by December 15, 2020;

(b) Cross-examinations, if any, on affidavits shall be conducted on December 18, 2020, for up to a total of three hours for each party;

(c) the Plaintiff shall deliver her Factum by December 28, 2020. The Responding Defendant shall deliver his Factum by December 31, 2020.

[9] The Motion shall be returned for hearing on January 13, 2021, for two hours, a date made available by the Court. This date was scheduled without the input of the parties as to their availability that day. If this hearing date is unavailable to either of the parties, the parties shall attend at Civil Practice Court to schedule a different hearing date.

[10] The Mareva Order shall remain in effect until 4:30 pm on the date of the further hearing of this Motion, currently scheduled for January 13, 2021.

[11] Last, this action is over 2 years old. There is no reason why it ought not to be prepared for trial. After having an opportunity to confer, the parties agreed on the following timetable for the completion of the remaining steps in this action, which I order on their consent:

(a) motions on undertakings and refusals of the Responding Defendant shall be scheduled on consent;

(b) the Responding Defendant shall, by March 31, 2021, complete his examination for discovery of the Plaintiff;

(c) the Plaintiff shall complete, by March 31, 201, any continued or further examination of the Responding Defendant on undertakings, should any such continued or further examination be necessary.

(d) The parties shall complete the mandatory mediation in this action by April 30, 2021;

(e) The Plaintiff shall set this action down for trial by May 15, 2021.

[12] All other relief sought by the Plaintiff in its Motion is adjourned to the return of this Motion. The costs of this Motion are reserved to the Judge hearing the return of this Motion. I am not seized of this Motion.

[13] The parties filed, on consent, a form of draft Order, approved as to form and content, containing the terms set out in this Endorsement. This Order shall issue.

Sanfilippo, J.

Date: December 9, 2020