CITATION: Seferovic v. 285 Spadina SPV Inc., 2026 ONSC 2371
COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00662130-00CL
DATE: 20260421
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Devad Seferovic (also known as Alex Seferovic), Reza Abedi and Rodolphe Najm, Applicants
AND:
285 Spadina SPV Inc., Ronald Hitti (also known as Rony Hitti) and Raja Farah, Respondents
BEFORE: Cavanagh J.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY: Reza Abedi and Rodolphe Najm
Ronald Hitti and Raja Farah
HEARD: In Writing
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
[1] By endorsement released on September 29, 2025, I made orders dismissing the within application (the “Oppression Application”) and a related application (the “Lease Application”). In my endorsement, I wrote that if a party to either application seeks an order as to costs, such party or parties should arrange an appointment so I can set a timetable for written submissions. A timetable was later set and written submissions were made by Ronald Hitti and Raja Farah, respondents to the Oppression Application, and by Reza Abedi and Rodolphe Najm, applicants in the Oppression Application.
[2] Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah seek an order as to costs of the Oppression Application against the applicants Devad Seferovic, Reza Abedi, and Rodolphe Najm (together, the “Applicants”) and against other persons.
[3] The Applicants oppose any order requiring them to pay costs. The Applicants do not seek costs.
[4] This is my endorsement with respect to the claim by Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah for costs of the Oppression Application. In this endorsement, I also address claims made by Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah in their joint written submissions for orders in these two applications that are outside of claims for costs. I am releasing a separate endorsement addressing the parties’ submissions with respect to costs of the Lease Application.
Procedural History
[5] The Oppression Application was commenced by three individuals, Devad Seferovic, Reza Abedi, and Rodolphe Najm (the “Applicants”) against 285 Spadina SPV Inc., a tenant at premises located at the intersection of Dundas and Spadina in Toronto (the “Tenant”). The Oppression Application was also brought by the Applicants against Ronald Hitti and his mother, Raja Farah. Ms. Farah is the sole shareholder of the Tenant. She was not involved in the day to day operations of the Tenant or the dealings among the parties.
[6] In the Notice of Application, the Applicants allege that they are investors in the Tenant. They seek, among other relief: (i) an order compensating them for any damages they suffered due to the oppressive conduct of the respondents, and (ii) an accounting and tracing of all funds invested into the Tenant by them and an order for repayment for all funds that have been improperly taken by Mr. Hitti.
[7] The Oppression Application was initially heard by Kimmel J. on February 17 and 18, 2022. The Applicants were represented by legal counsel. The Tenant and Ms. Farah were represented by legal counsel. Mr. Hitti was self-represented.
[8] The Reasons for Decision of Kimmel J. were released on April 25, 2022. In her reasons, Kimmel J. noted that the only valuable asset of the Tenant is its leasehold interest in the leased premises. Kimmel J. made an order declaring that the powers of the respondents have been exercised in a manner that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly disregards the interests of the applicants. Kimmel J. granted an order for an accounting and tracing of all funds invested into the Tenant by the Applicants and Mr. Hitti, to be undertaken by an accounting expert at the equally shared cost of the Applicants and the Respondents. Kimmel J. ordered that to the extent that any further directions are required to implement the orders sought and granted, the parties may request a case conference before her. Kimmel J. ordered that no further relief may be pursued in connection with the matters raised by or in the context of the Oppression Application without leave of the court.
[9] By an endorsement dated July 7, 2022, an expert was appointed to conduct the accounting and tracing that was ordered.
[10] On February 13, 2023, Steele J. made an endorsement removing Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah as directors and officers of the Tenant and appointing the Applicants as directors of the Tenant and appointing Mr. Abedi and Mr. Najm as officers of the Tenant. In this endorsement, Steele J. noted that the accounting and tracing order in the decision of Kimel J. had not occurred due to delays and lack of cooperation by the Respondents who had not paid their half of the retainer despite a Court Order requiring such payment. After this order was made, counsel for the Applicants became counsel of record for the Tenant.
[11] An order was made terminating the lease held by the tenant. By order dated March 28, 2024, Wilton-Siegel J. denied the Tenant’s motion for relief from forfeiture.
[12] On August 30, 2024, orders were made removing counsel for record for the Applicants and for the Tenant as a Respondent. No new counsel was appointed for the Tenant.
[13] By endorsement dated September 29, 2025, orders were made dismissing the Oppression Application and the Lease Application. Each of the Applicants had advised the Court that he does not wish to pursue the remining claims in the Oppression Application. Each Applicant requested an order dismissing the Oppression Application.
[14] In the endorsement dismissing the Oppression Application, the Court directed that if any party seeks an order as to costs of either application, an appointment for a case conference should be arranged so that a timetable can be set for written submissions. A timetable was later approved. Written submissions were received.
Is Ronald Hitti entitled to an award of costs against the Applicants in the Oppression Application?
[15] Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah delivered joint costs submissions.
[16] Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah submit that as a result of the Order dated September 29, 2025 dismissing the Oppression Application, they were successful respondents in the Oppression Application and should be entitled to costs.
[17] Rule 38.08(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that where an application is abandoned by delivery by an applicant of a notice of abandonment, a respondent on whom the notice of application was served is entitled to the costs of the application unless the court orders otherwise. At the case conference held on September 29, 2025, the Applicants were invited to proceed with the application or end it. Each of the Applicants advised that he did not wish to pursue the remaining claims made in the Oppression Application and requested an order dismissing the Oppression Application. Through this request, the Applicants, in essence, were seeking to abandon the relief that remained to be adjudicated in the Oppression Application. In the circumstances in which the dismissal order was made, Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah are entitled to costs of the Applicants’ unadjudicated claims made in the Oppression Application unless the court orders otherwise.
[18] Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah submit that the Applicants, the Landlord, their present and former legal counsel, and other persons should be treated as “one and the same ‘Opposing Litigants’” and, therefore, they should be held jointly and severally liable for costs of the Oppression Application and the Lease Application and other orders claimed by Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah. There is no basis for this submission, and I reject it. I consider the claim for costs by Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah as being made against the Applicants.
[19] Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah submit that the agreement referenced in the endorsement of Kimmel J. dated April 25, 2022 provides for payment of an agreed amount of costs by the losing parties to the Oppression Application to the winning parties, with success to be determined based on the final outcome. Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah submit that they (and the Tenant) were the successful parties because the Oppression Application was ultimately dismissed. Ms. Farah seeks $45,000 based on the agreement referenced in the endorsement of Kimmel J. and she and Mr. Hitti submit that the Tenant is entitled to costs in the amount of $45,000 based on this agreement.
[20] In her April 25, 2022 endorsement, Kimmel J. made the following endorsement with respect to costs of the Oppression Application:
[96] Each of the applicants and respondents seek substantial indemnity costs against each other. They reached an agreement that the winner would pay the loser costs of this application fixed in the amount of $45,000, with the court to determine who was the overall winner on this application.
[97] The applicants have achieved substantial success on this application. While not all of the relief the applicants sought was awarded at this time, part of the reason some of the relief was determined to be premature is due to the lack of disclosure on the part of the respondents, which has now been ordered, along with an accounting and tracing. Further, the respondents resisted this application largely on the basis that the applicants were not proper complainants, and they lost on that threshold argument.
[98] The respondents, Rony and 285 Spadina, are ordered to pay the applicants forthwith their costs of the application to date fixed in the amount of $45,000.
[21] The endorsement of Kimmel J. is clear that the agreement was in respect of costs of the application heard by Kimmel J. These costs were awarded based on the agreement, and Mr. Hitti and the Tenant were ordered to pay costs fixed in the amount of $45,000. I therefore reject the submission by Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah that they are entitled to costs against the Applicants based on the agreement referenced in the endorsement of Kimmel J.
[22] In the endorsement of Kimmel J. dated April 25, 2022, she found that the powers of the respondents have been exercised in a manner that is oppressive, unfairly prejudicial to, or unfairly disregards the interests of the applicants. Kimmel J. granted an order for an accounting and tracing of all funds invested into the Tenant by the Applicants and Mr. Hitti, to be undertaken by an accounting expert at the equally shared cost of the Applicants and the Respondents. The Respondents failed to pay their share of the deposit to retain the accountant, and, therefore the accounting did not proceed. Ultimately, the lease held by the Tenant, its only valuable asset, was terminated, and relief from forfeiture was denied.
[23] In these circumstances, the decision by the Applicants to end the Oppression Application was fully justified. Given the decision by Kimmel J., Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah cannot be considered to be the successful parties in the Oppression Application.
[24] The costs of Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah in relation to the Oppression Application after the decision of Kimmel J. was released were the result of actions taken by Mr. Hitti that are described in the endorsement of Black J. dated July 18, 2025. In his endorsement on a motion by Mr. Hitti for leave to bring a motion to set aside certain orders of the court, Black J. set out much of the procedural history in relation to the Oppression Application and the related Lease Application. It is not necessary for me to repeat this history in this endorsement. In his endorsement, Black J. concluded that “Mr. Hitti’s conduct has for a very long time been far over any reasonable line”. Justice Black concluded that Mr. Hitti “has caused considerable waste of scarce judicial time and resources, the time and resources of his opponents, and the valuable time and attention of court staff”. Justice Black found that Mr. Hitti’s conduct and the conduct of the Tenant directed by Mr. Hitti are at least frivolous and vexatious and constitute an abuse of the process of the court.
[25] When I consider the outcome of the Oppression Application and the factors in rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, having regard to the findings made by Black J. in his July 18, 2025 endorsement, I conclude that Mr. Hitti has taken steps in this application that were improper, vexatious and unnecessary. I have no hesitation in concluding that Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah are not entitled to costs of the Oppression Application against the Applicants.
Other claims made by Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah in their written costs submissions
[26] Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah, in their Joint Costs Submissions dated March 29, 2025, make additional claims against the Applicants as well as the Landlord and other persons (including legal counsel and former legal counsel for the Landlord and the Applicants) included in the group of persons they describe as the “Opposing Litigants”. These additional claims are for orders which are outside of a claim by Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah for costs of the Oppression Application or the Lease Application.
[27] The additional orders claimed by Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah are:
(a) An order for costs of an application by the Tenant against the Landlord (CV-21-00674331-00CL). Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah are not parties to this proceeding.
(b) An order under s. 46.1(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19. No finding was made in the Oppression Application or the Lease Application that a party to the proceeding has infringed a right under Part I of another party to the proceeding, and no order was made in either application under the Human Rights Code.
(c) An order for payment of money by the “Opposing Litigants”, unrelated to costs, that was allegedly appropriated from the Tenant by the “Opposing Litigants”;
(d) An order requiring the “Opposing Litigants” to pay an amount for rent that was not owing between June 2021 and February 2022 and that was paid in compliance with court orders that are alleged to have been fraudulently obtained;
(e) An order requiring the “Opposing Litigants” to give exclusive possession of the leased premises to the Tenant and pay to the Tenant an amount for rent received from Rogers and Freedom (telecom companies);
(f) An order requiring the “Opposing Litigants” to make a payment to Mr. Hitti in compliance with a default judgment in another proceeding (CV-22-00687524-0000);
(g) An order directing a two-hour hearing within 2 weeks to consider orders under s. 46.1(1) of the Human Rights Code and for full restitution and compensation by the “Opposing Litigants” to Ms. Farah and/or Mr. Hitti, including but not limited to opportunity costs of Mr. Hitti since 2021; and
(h) An order prohibiting any of the “Opposing Litigants” from taking any legal steps including responding to the costs submissions of Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah before complying with the requested orders.
[28] An order was made dismissing each of the Lease Application and the Oppression Application. Through these orders, the claims made by the applicants in these applications have been finally decided. The only remaining matter to be addressed in each application is costs. The claims for costs are being addressed in this costs endorsement and the costs endorsement in the Lease Application.
[29] I do not grant any of the additional orders claimed by Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah, through their written submissions, in either of the Lease Application or the Oppression Application. I decline the request made by Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah to direct a hearing in the Oppression Application or in the Lease Application to consider (i) orders under s. 46.1(1) of the Human Rights Code, or (ii) claims by Mr. Hitti or Ms. Farah for restitution or compensation to be paid by the so-called “Opposing Litigants”.
Disposition of claim by Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah for costs
[30] The claim by Mr. Hitti and Ms. Farah against the Applicants (and other persons) for costs of the Oppression Application is denied.
Cavanagh J.
Date: April 21, 2026