Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: 543 RICHMOND STREET WEST HOLDINGS INC., Plaintiff
AND:
RAHIM HADANI, LUCAS ISABELLA, PHILOPATEER HANIEN, RAKIBUL ISLAM, JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, Defendants
BEFORE: Paul B. Schabas J.
COUNSEL: Adam Lifshitz, for the Plaintiff
Rahim Hadani, Self-represented Defendant
HEARD: January 26, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
1The plaintiff has commenced an action against Rahim Hadani and others arising out of an aborted condominium purchase by Mr. Hadani. Mr. Hadani initially took interim occupancy of the unit but the purchase did not close. Mr Hadani left the unit in June 2025; however, the other named defendants continued to occupy it – either as tenants or as roommates of Mr. Hadani.
2The statement of claim was issued in July 2025 and the defendants have been noted in default, although Mr. Hadani says he will seek to have that set aside in order to defend the action.
3In the meantime, the plaintiff seeks an order that the defendants vacate the property so that the plaintiff can take steps to sell it.
4Mr. Hadani does not oppose the motion. He has not been in the unit since June 2025, and he advises that the other defendants have all left as well. This is consistent with information provided by counsel for the plaintiff that there has been no fob activity accessing the unit since December 2025.
5Two of the other defendants swore affidavits in October 2025 which were filed by Mr Hadani, asserting they were roommates of Mr Hadani. There is no evidence of any lease, rental or tenancy arrangement. These other defendants have not appeared to oppose this motion. I find there is no tenancy involving the defendants other than Hadani. However, if I am incorrect, I would find that the tenancy has been terminated.
6I am satisfied that the Court has jurisdiction to issue the order sought, even if a tenancy exists: Residential Tenancies Act, s. 207; Kaiman v. Graham, 2009 ONCA 77 at paras. 12 -15. If there is no tenancy, then the defendants, should they still be occupying the premises, are trespassers: Montaque v. West, 2024 ONSC 652 at para. 70; Trespass to Property Act, s. 2(1).
7The plaintiff’s motion is granted. I have amended the draft order to extend the time to vacate the property to one week.
Schabas J.
Date: January 26, 2026