SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: DIMA HOMES LTD., RAFFAELE RICCIUTI, TERESA RITORTO
and DANIELE DI ROCCO, Plaintiffs
AND:
BABAK ZAMANI also known as BOB ZAMANI, NIMA SAMIEE, TINA SAMIEE, 1000253076 ONTARIO INC., MOHSEN ZAMANI, BIJAN ZAMANI ZAMANI HOMES (RICHMOND HILL) LTD., ZAMANI HOMES LTD., 2722350 ONTARIO LTD., FLORA ZAMANI BARGHIAN, 13850072 CANADA CORPORATION, SANIRA ARVANNORMOHAMADDI, HAMIDREZA KAZEMISREHST, NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA, KATRINA MARCINIAK, MARCINIAK LAW, ALI AHMARI- MOGHADDAM, REZA KAZEMI, INTERNATIONAL CONNECT LAW PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION and THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA,
Defendants
BEFORE: Parghi, J.
COUNSEL: Isidoro R. Grossi and Davinder Ajrawat, for the Plaintiffs
Melvyn Solmon, Eric Lee, Faraaz Damji, and Julia Wikes, for the Defendants Babak Zamani also known as Bob Zamani, Zamani Homes (Richmond Hill) Ltd, Zamani Homes Ltd., 2722350 Ontario Ltd., Mohsen Zamani, Nima Samiee, Tina Samiee, and 1000253076 Ontario Inc.
HEARD: March 31, 2026 (in writing)
ENDORSEMENT
1I issue this endorsement further to my endorsements of October 6, 2025 (2025 ONSC 6913), October 8, 2025 (2025 ONSC 6912), and January 19, 2026.
2The action has been settled against the defendants Babak Zamani also known as Bob Zamani, Nima Samiee, Tina Samiee, 1000253076 Ontario Inc., Mohsen Zamani, Zamani Homes (Richmond Hill) Ltd., Zamani Homes Ltd., and 2722350 Ontario Ltd. (the “main defendants”) by Minutes of Settlement dated November 28 and December 1, 2025.
3In those Minutes of Settlement, the plaintiffs’ allegations and claims of fraud and fraudulent conveyance as against the main defendants have been withdrawn. The allegations of deception against the plaintiffs have been withdrawn. The allegations of an extramarital affair between the plaintiffs Raffaele Ricciuti and Teresa Ritorto have been withdrawn as against Raffaele Ricciuti, Teresa Ritorto, and the plaintiffs.
4Accordingly, nothing in the previous endorsements shall be interpreted or construed as a finding that the plaintiffs are deceptive, that the plaintiffs Raffaele Ricciuti and Teresa Ritorto are or were involved in an extramarital affair, that any of the main defendants are “fraudsters”, or that any of the main defendants have committed fraud or any fraudulent conveyance.
5The parties jointly requested a sealing of the court file. In my Endorsement of January 19, 2026, I held as follows:
I decline to grant the request for a sealing order. The test for granting a sealing order under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act is provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sherman Estate v. Donovan 2021 SCC 25, [2021] 2 S.C.R. 75. The Court in Sherman Estate emphasized that “there is a strong presumption in favour of open courts,” (at para.2). Notwithstanding this presumption, where “exceptional circumstances” (at para. 3) arise that are said to call for a limitation on openness, the applicant must show that the order is necessary and proportionate and that the benefits of the restriction on openness outweigh its negative effects, by establishing the following (at para. 38):
a. That court openness poses a serious risk to an important public interest;
b. That the order sought is necessary to prevent this serious risk to the identified interest because reasonably alternative measures will not prevent this risk; and
c. That, as a matter of proportionality, the benefits of the order outweigh its negative effects.
Only when all of these requirements have been established by the party seeking the confidentiality may the court exercise its discretion to grant a discretionary limit on court openness, whether in the form of a sealing order, a publication ban, an order excluding the public from a hearing or a redaction order (at para. 38).
Based on the materials before me, these requirements are not established. No important public interest is identified. Based on the explanation for the request provided by counsel, I am unable to see how a public interest could properly be identified in the circumstances of this case. I do not grant any sealing order.
6The parties have now asked that instead of sealing the court file I redact certain information within it. As indicated in my previous endorsement, however, a redaction order is a form of confidentiality order, and a limit on court openness, that I may exercise my discretion to grant only where the requirements set forth in Shearman Estate are established by the party making the request. These requirements have not been satisfied – indeed, no submissions at all are provided in favour of the request – and I therefore do not grant the redaction order sought.
7The order shall go in the form attached.
Parghi J.
Date: April 7, 2026