Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-80332 DATE: 20210208 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: ANTRANIK KECHICHIAN, Plaintiff AND: GESTION ERIC SAVARD, ERIC SAVARD, ESSILOR GROUP CANADA INC., 10313033 CANADA INC., KHALED EL-SHIEK, DANY DREIGE, ROSALIE MALO, MADELEINE BONHOMME, SAMEH MANSOUR, KAUFMAN LLP, 10402623 CANADA INC., 10366668 CANADA INC., RAHMA HAJAJI, TAMI ABOUBAKARY, 9372-3781 QUEBEC INC., 9346-3495 QUEBEC INC., 9346-3503 QUEBEC INC. and 9109862 CANADA INC., Defendants

BEFORE: Mew J.

COUNSEL: Antranik Kechichian, unrepresented Gary G. Boyd, for the defendant, Kaufman LLP (moving party) 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 court file no. CV-19-80189 (Kechichian v. Savard, 2021 ONSC 1010). That case dealt with what was referred to as the “Van Horne property”.

[2] Here, as in CV-19-80189, 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 Beaubien 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 12 June 2019, the lessor, Patricia Salvucci, obtained a default judgment against Optical Vision of Canada Ltd. and 9346-3496 Québec Inc. The precise amount of that judgment is not in evidence. However, the plaintiff’s claim in relation to the lease appears to be for $209,456.16.

[3] In addition, the plaintiff claims $150,000 for “stolen patient files, assets, furniture and a full set of eye-exam equipment” alleged to have been removed from the 1465 Van Home Avenue location, and $50,000 for legal and professional accounting fees paid by him and, thus, is duplicative of a claim made in court file no. CV-19-80189.

[4] For the same reasons as set out in my endorsement in court file no. CV-19-80276, the claim is statute barred, and otherwise without merit. There are no triable issues. Accordingly, summary judgment shall go in favour of the moving party dismissing the action against it. I am presumptively of the view that the moving parties are entitled to their costs of the motion and the action on a partial indemnity basis.

[5] 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