Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-21-00000110-00 and CV-21-00000110-00A1 Date: 2026-03-23 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: 2377351 Ontario Inc., Plaintiff And: Maryam Furney and Hassan Hashemi, Defendants

And Re: Maryam Furney, Plaintiff in the Third Party Claim And: Rachel Mok, Duke Pham, Steve Chan, Century 21 Atria Realty Inc., Louis Vittas, Anil Kumar Kingrani, 2257573 Ontario Inc., Muthukumarasamy Thulasitharan and Anoshan Ahangama, Defendants to the Third Party Claim

Before: The Hon. Justice S.E. Fraser

Counsel: Maryam Furney, Moving Party (Self-Represented) Robin Moodie, for the Respondents Louis Vittas and Bronwyn Martin

Heard: March 20, 2026

Endorsement

I. Nature of the Motion

[1] Maryam Furney brings this motion under Rule 60.11 for an order finding Louis Vittas, 2377351 Ontario Inc., Rachel Mok, and Bronwyn Martin in contempt of court. All but Ms. Martin are Defendants to a Third Party Claim commenced by Ms. Furney.

[2] The motion was set on the long motions running list and as noted on the notice of motion, was to be called on three days' notice.

[3] Ms. Furney asserts that these parties knowingly, wilfully, and repeatedly relied on a vacated writ of execution registered against Maryam Furney, despite the clear and unequivocal Order issued by The Honourable Justice Sutherland on April 27, 2022, which set aside the underlying default judgment and mandated the cancellation of the related writ.

[4] Rachel Mok and Mr. Vittas are Defendants in the Third Party Claim issued by Ms. Furney. Ms. Martin represents Mr. Vittas and others.

[5] The Defendant to the main action, Mr. Hassan Hashemi, was given leave to commence a Third Party Claim but failed to do so by the date set by Justice Casullo in her November 15, 2024 Order.

II. Adjournment Request

[6] This matter was called on March 13, 2026 to be heard today. In advance of today, Ms. Furney gave notice that she would be seeking an adjournment of today's hearing.

[7] The adjournment request was dealt with at the opening of the motion. The adjournment was sought because her co-defendant in the main action, Mr. Hashemi, recently and suddenly passed away. She informed me that he was prepared to provide crucial evidence on this motion and that she required 90 days to move forward now that he had passed away. She also informed me that she had been in touch with counsel today and was hoping to retain counsel. The Respondents to this motion opposed the adjournment request.

[8] For reasons given orally, I denied the adjournment. The record will reflect the full reasons. By way of summary, after considering the factors set out Khimji v. Dhanani, 2004 CanLII 12037 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 320, 69 O.R. (3d) 790, at para. 19, Ariston Realty Corp. v. Elcarim Inc., 2007 CanLII 13360 (ON SC), [2007] O.J. No. 1497, 51 C.P.C. (6th) 326, at para. 34, I held that Ms. Furney had ample time to put her evidence before the Court prior to Mr. Hashemi's passing and had not. She had had ample time to retain counsel and had not.

[9] There is on-going prejudice to these Respondents given the serious nature of the allegations put against them. I determined that the matter would proceed today based on the material filed and the submissions made.

III. Nature of the Underlying Action

[10] The underlying action is one of mortgage enforcement. The Plaintiff in the first action alleges a default on a mortgage entered into in 2017.

[11] Mr. Vittas is counsel of record in for the Plaintiff in the main action.

[12] The Third-Party Claim defendants include several lawyers who have represented parties adverse to Ms. Furney including Mr. Vittas. In the Third Party Claim, Ms. Furney alleges that these third parties have committed fraud, perjury and misconduct. Ms. Martin has been retained to represent the third parties who are lawyers, including Mr. Vittas.

[13] Ms. Furney alleges that Ms. Mok is the principal of 2377351 Ontario Inc. Ms. Mok has not responded to this motion.

IV. Arguments on the Motion

A. Moving Party

[14] After I denied her request for an adjournment, Ms. Furney did not wish to argue the motion. She had difficulty remaining silent while I gave my reasons for denying the adjournment and began to argue with me before I could finish delivering my reasons. She asked to be excused from the proceeding. I offered her a break to consider whether she wished to remain as I intended to decide the motion based on the material before me and the submissions of the parties.

[15] Following the break, I finished delivering my reasons for denying the adjournment. I informed Ms. Furney that I would hear her submissions on the contempt motion based on the material filed.

[16] Ms. Furney argued that I denied her constitutional right to be heard by denying the adjournment and that I have prohibited her from filing the evidence. In short, I have silenced her. I encouraged her to speak to the issues of contempt on this motion by reference to the materials that she filed and to the law. She chose to make submissions to make allegations of fraud, perjury, money laundering and other allegations.

[17] I again encouraged her to focus on the allegations of contempt. She declined to do so, noting that she would seek her remedies elsewhere.

B. Respondents

[18] The Respondents assert that the motion should fail on it is merits because none of those alleged to be in contempt of the subject of a court order and this is dispositive of the motion.

C. Analysis

[19] To find a person guilty of contempt, I must examine whether the order alleged to be breached states clearly what should be done, whether the person breached the order deliberately and wilfully, and whether the contempt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See Oliveira v. Olivera, 2023 ONCA 520, at para. 63.

[20] Ms. Furney's motion fails on the first part of the test. The Order of Justice Sutherland dated April 27, 2022 did not require the Responding parties to do or not to do anything. That is, they are not personally the subject of a court order. There is nothing for them to breach.

[21] Ms. Furney had tendered no evidence to support her allegation of a breach, let alone that there was a deliberate and wilful breach of a court order.

[22] The motion fails.

[23] I pause to note Ms. Furney had already attempted to find Mr. Vittas in contempt of court in a different proceeding but involving similar facts. Ms. Furney objects to the Respondent's reliance on the finding of this Court in a related proceeding. I find it is proper for that ruling to be put before me. Because of my finding that there is no order to be breached, I need not consider the Responding parties' argument that this contempt motion is an attempt to re-litigate the May 14, 2025 decision of Justice Ohler which Ms. Furney has appealed.

[24] I also need not deal with whether the Notice of Motion should be struck under Rule 25.11.

[25] What is obvious on this record is that Ms. Furney has made unsupported allegations of contemptuous conduct for which there is no basis.

D. Disposition & Costs

[26] The motion is dismissed with costs. The Respondents seek their costs on a full indemnity basis of the scandalous nature of the allegations which are not at all supported by the evidence. I agree that a higher scale of costs should be awarded on the facts of this case. The costs outline proposes reasonable costs even at the higher scale and would be within the expectation of Ms. Furney. The Respondents who appeared shall have their costs on a full indemnity basis, fixed at $8,612.00 plus HST for a total of $9,731.56 payable within 30 days.

[27] There shall be an order to go in accordance with this Endorsement.

Justice S.E. Fraser

Date: March 23, 2026