ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ALIREZA SAEED, DOREEN DEVELOPMENT INC. and ADA ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS INC.
Plaintiffs
– and –
SEYED MOHAMMADALI NOJOUMI, BEHNAZ SAMAVAT, AMIR MOSTOUFI, SMART PRIME GROUP INC., SMART PRIME GROUP LTD., MOBIUS EXCELLENT GROUP LTD., POL CANADA ADVERTISEMENT INC., JOHN DOES, JANE DOES and DOE CORPORATIONS
Defendants
Norman J. Groot and Ashley Ferguson, for the Plaintiffs
Gary M. Caplan and Aram Simovonian, for the Defendants, Seyed Nojoumi and Smart Prime Group Ltd.
Eric Sherkin for the Defendant, Behnaz Samavat
Justin W. Anisman for the Defendant, Mobius Excellent Group Ltd.
Enayatollah Ghassemlou, Representative of POL Canada Advertisement Inc., Self-Represented
Hannah Young for Sayedehmaryam Alavinasab (Non-Party)
HEARD: July 13, 2023
Papageorgiou j.
Overview
1The plaintiffs allege that between December 2021 and March 2023, they transferred or caused to be transferred $6,003,115 to various entities at the direction of certain of the defendants.
2The plaintiffs obtained an ex parte mareva injunction and Anton Pillar order on June 5, 2023 which were continued on June 12, 2023.
3The Anton Pillar order was executed with documents being delivered to the plaintiffs. As well, the defendants did provide affidavits as required by the mareva injunction. The plaintiffs indicate that the affidavits of the defendants Mr. Nojoumi and Ms. Samavat do not assist with asset tracing. There was a partial examination of Mr. Nojoumi, Ms. Samavat and Mr. Mostoufi.
The Motion and Issues
4The plaintiffs brought this motion for relief which included various production Orders as well as Orders in respect of the examination of the defendants pursuant to a timetable. The bulk of the relief requested is not opposed.
5The only issue which is contentious is the plaintiff’s request in paragraph 9 of its Notice of Motion for an Order that a representative of a non-party Tejarat Exchange Inc. provide information related to the defendants in aid of the mareva injunction. The plaintiff, Mr. Saeed has given evidence that he was contacted by someone in the Persian community and advised that someone dropped off $97,000 at Tejarat Exchange which was then transferred to Mr. Nojoumi. Counsel for Mr. Nojoumi argues that I should not make this order because it is actually an attempt to provide evidence in support of a contempt motion. He says that the plaintiffs should prepare and file contempt motion materials, to which he will respond and that only then may an order be made that Tejarat Exchange be examined in aid of the contempt motion. In my view this would not be an efficient use of the Court’s or the parties’ time. If Mr. Nojoumi did not do this, then there will be no evidence from Tejarat Exchange. In any event, the plaintiff says they are not bringing a contempt motion; rather this order is necessary in aid of execution of the mareva injunction. I agree. I do not accept Mr. Kaplan’s argument that any Charter issues arise in this context. Counsel for Mr. Nojoumi and Ms. Samavat’s argue that if the examination order is made, then they would like rights of cross examination. I agree that this is appropriate and it was unopposed by the plaintiffs.
6All other orders sought are reasonable orders necessary in aid of execution of the mareva injunction. All parties have been served with this motion, and have either attended and indicated that they do not oppose the relief, or have not attended at all. Therefore the relief sought is unopposed.
7The parties have agreed upon the following timetable: All parties shall be examined by July 21, 2023 with the exception of POL Canada which shall occur on July 28, 2023. There was a representative who has been granted leave to appear and speak here on behalf of POL Canada and who agreed to this.
Scheduling of a Motion to Stay
8There is one final matter. Yesterday Mr. Nojoumi served a motion record containing his evidence that he met with the plaintiff Mr. Saeed yesterday for coffee and that three gentlemen arrived at the table, that they talked about the debt to the plaintiffs and that they appeared again later to essentially threaten him. His counsel wishes to bring an abuse of process motion to stay this proceeding. The court office has given me the date of September 14, 2023. The parties agree that they will be able to work out a timetable for exchange of materials and cross examinations.
Further attendance
9The parties shall attend a case conference on August 7, 2023 before me at 9:00 am.
Papageorgiou J.
Released: July 13, 2023
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ALIREZA SAEED, DOREEN DEVELOPMENT INC. and ADA ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS INC.
Plaintiffs
– and –
SEYED MOHAMMADALI NOJOUMI, BEHNAZ SAMAVAT, AMIR MOSTOUFI, SMART PRIME GROUP INC., SMART PRIME GROUP LTD., MOBIUS EXCELLENT GROUP LTD., POL CANADA ADVERTISEMENT INC., JOHN DOES, JANE DOES and DOE CORPORATIONS
Defendants
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Papageorgiou J.
Released: July 13, 2023