Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-80276 DATE: 20210208 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: ANTRANIK KECHICHIAN, Plaintiff AND: GESTION ERIC SAVARD, DR. ERIC SAVARD, ESSILOR GROUP CANADA INC., 10313033 CANADA INC., MADELEINE BONHOMME, SAMEH MANSOUR, KAUFMAN LLP, DANNY DREIGE, ROSALIE MALO, KHALED EL-SHEIK, 1040261 CANADA INC. and 10366668 CANADA INC., Defendants

BEFORE: Mew J.

COUNSEL: Antranik Kechichian, unrepresented Gary G. Boyd, for the defendant (moving party), Kaufman LLP Chad Pilkington, for the defendant, Essilor Group Canada Inc.

HEARD: 28 October 2020, in Ottawa (by Zoom)

Endorsement

[1] The issues raised on this motion for summary judgment, brought by Kaufman LLP against the plaintiff, are similar to those raised in Kechichian v. Savard, Court file no. CV-19-80189. That case dealt with what was referred to as the “Van Horne property”.

[2] Here, as in the other case, the genesis of the plaintiff’s claim is a judgment obtained by a commercial lessor against Optical Vision of Canada Ltd. The plaintiff alleges that the moving party was negligent and in breach of contract because of its failure to have the lease of commercial premises known as the Laurier Optical Dix 30 location assigned to new owners of Laurier Optical when the business was sold. After the new owners, referred to in other proceedings as the Savard companies, defaulted on the lease payments, on 10 May 2018, the lessor, 9206-2884 Québec Inc., obtained a default judgment against Optical Vision of Canada Ltd. for $129,588.32.

[3] The plaintiff candidly acknowledges that “this file is 100% similar to Van Horne” and that, as with the Van Horne location, the landlord of the Dix 30 location was not paid. However, he asserts that the landlord “sued Kechichian to pay the rent on behalf of Essilor and Dr. Eric Savard” when, in fact, the landlord sued Optical Vision Ltd.

[4] A recurrent theme in Mr. Kechichian’s various actions is his assertion that lawsuits and judgments against companies that he has, or had, an ownership interest in, are lawsuits and judgments against him personally. His rationale, as appears in paragraph 17 of his statement of claim, is that as the sole director of Optical Vision, he “is therefore liable to make payments for the outstanding amount”.

[5] While his claim also makes reference to “the guarantor”, there is no evidence that Mr. Kechichian has made any payments, or been sued, in his capacity as a guarantor of the lease for the Dix 30 location.

[6] Nor, as in other actions which he has commenced, does the plaintiff have any provable, compensable loss. Specifically, he acknowledges that the $300,000 that he seeks for “stolen” assets of eye wear, plus patient files, eye exam equipment and other items, were covered by a Vesting Order made by the Québec Superior Court, that he has not paid the Dix 30 judgment, nor has he incurred the $50,000 in legal fees that he seeks to be paid.

[7] Furthermore, what Mr. Kechichian refers to in the statement of claim in this action as “the global Essilor/Savard/Kaufman claim” is ongoing in the Québec Superior Court, as is an action in that court commenced by Kaufman for the recovery of unpaid fees in which Mr. Kechichian has counterclaimed. There appears to be significant, if not complete, overlap between the relief sought in this (and other) Ontario actions and the Québec proceedings.

[8] Accordingly, aside and apart from any limitation issue, the record discloses no viable basis for the claim that is made, and the relief sought is, in any event, duplicative of relief sought by Mr. Kechichian (and 9130217 Canada Inc. and Optical Vision) in extant proceedings in Québec.

[9] The plaintiff commenced this action on 14 May 2019. Although that was only a year after the default judgment, it was well in excess of two years after Mr. Kechichian became aware that lease payments were not being made. As I held in court file no. CV-19-80189 (Kechichian v. Savard, 2021 ONSC 1010), at para. 12, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it can be presumed that by no later than December 2016 the plaintiff knew, or should have known, that Kaufman had not done the job that they were expected to in relation to the assignment of the leases, including the lease on the Dix 30 location.

[10] Accordingly, summary judgment shall go in favour of the moving parties dismissing the action against them. I am presumptively of the view that the moving party is entitled to its costs of the motion and the action on a partial indemnity basis.

[11] As this is one of six summary judgment motions involving the plaintiff which were heard consecutively, I will give direction separately with respect to the delivery of costs summaries and submissions on the issue of costs in both this and the other summary judgment motions which I heard at the same time.

Mew J. Date: 08 February 2021