Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-20-00645755-0000 Date: 2026-03-05

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

BETWEEN:

MAISON PRIVE LLC, dba PORTER PRIVE Plaintiff

-- and --

ALI MOGHTADAEI and SEPIDEH MOAZZANI Defendants

AND BETWEEN:

ALI MOGHTADAEI and SEPIDEH MOAZZANI Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

-and-

MAISON PRIVE LLC, dba PORTER PRIVE, JEFFREY BERK and MICHELLE BERK Defendants to the Counterclaim

Jordan Goldblatt, Lawyers for the Plaintiff and Defendants to the Counterclaim Ali Moghtadaei, Self-Represented and Acting in Person, Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim) Sepideh Moazzani, Self-Represented and Acting in Person, Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Heard: December 1, 2025

Reasons for Decision

G. DOW, J.

[1] This matter came before me as a "undefended" one day trial. To the contrary, both the defendants (and plaintiffs by counterclaim) Ali Moghtadaei and Sepideh Moazzani (whom I shall refer to as the defendants) appeared (albeit shortly after court commenced at 10:00 am) and requested a (further) adjournment.

[2] I heard submissions from the parties and gave an oral ruling rejecting the defendants' request which I will not repeat. I relied principally on their attendance before Justice Chalmers on March 27, 2025 (endorsement dated March 28, 2025) and his endorsement where the defendants requested an adjournment "to allow time to retain counsel" which was granted by him, peremptory on the defendants. Further, Justice Chalmers stated "The Defendant states that the lawyer they retain for the trial may not be available for that date. If that is the case, the Defendant may request a further case conference with me. However, the expectation is that counsel retained by the Defendant will make the necessary arrangements to ensure they are available for the trial on December 1, 2025".

[3] Further, it was clear health issues relied on by each of the defendants as a basis for their adjournment request existed as of their appearance before Justice Chalmers on March 27, 2025.

[4] The plaintiffs and defendants by counterclaim, Maison Prive LLC dba Porter Prive, Jeffrey and Michelle Berk (whom I shall refer to as the plaintiffs) rely on a March 4, 2025 Request to Admit (marked as Exhibit A) to which the defendants never responded. The plaintiffs also relied on and read into the record portions of the defendants' examination for discovery testimony.

[5] Following the plaintiffs concluding tendering of their evidence, I raised what, if any, evidence the defendants could tender within the one day of time allotted for the trial. I confirmed with plaintiff's counsel that if the defendants intended to give oral evidence which contradicted the Request to Admit admitting certain facts, this would result in an objection that would be required to be sustained given the defendants' prior failure to respond as required under Rule 51.03(2). Further, on the basis the plaintiffs were relying solely on the admitted facts from the Request to Admit and answers given to questions asked at the defendants' examination for discovery, any other evidence oral evidence from the defendants would not be relevant or used to undermine the factual underpinnings of the claim for judgment and dismissal of the counterclaim.

[6] The counterclaim is an action for damages arising from a variety of torts listed in paragraph 70(a) including "defamation, breach of privacy, intrusion upon seclusion, public disclosure of private facts, appropriation of personality, publicity in a false light, conspiracy, intentional interference with economic relations, breach of contract, breach of the duty of honesty and good faith in contractual performance, and abuse of process". Further, injunctive relief to stop the plaintiffs from continuing to make derogatory comments about the defendants was the subject of a motion and order by Justice Steele, dated November 12, 2020 which continued her September 30, 2020 order, granting mandatory injunctive relief to stop inappropriate conduct by the plaintiffs, pending trial. I was also advised a costs order was made against the plaintiffs in the amount of $42,000, which was paid.

[7] During submissions, and the result of the scheduling of the hearing of this matter being limited to a single day, counsel for the plaintiffs conceded emphasis should be given to dealing with the main action (as opposed to the counterclaim). It was acknowledged the defendants ought to be permitted to tender evidence in support of its claims although counsel for the plaintiffs raised concerns about this relying on the appearance before and order of Justice Chalmers at the end of March, 2025.

[8] The essence of the plaintiffs' claims was payment by the plaintiffs of $53,000 (USD) on July 27, 2020 and $88,500 (USD) on August, 2020 for seven luxury watches which were never provided. In addition, the plaintiffs forwarded three handbags to the defendants which were valued at $61,000 (USD). No funds were provided to the plaintiffs resulting in a claim for the Canadian equivalent of $194,500 (USD).

[9] The Request to Admit and examination for discovery testimony confirmed Ali Moghtadaei's relationship with Sepideh Moazzani and his having an American Express Card with Sepideh Moazzani having a secondary card. This provided her with access to both charges and making payments on the account. Shortly after receipt of the funds from the plaintiffs, Sepideh Moazzani began depositing funds to the American Express account. Ali Moghtadaei acknowledged his awareness of payments in denominations of $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 and $5,000 without asking about the source of the funds. This is relevant because Sepideh Moazzani was not employed during the relevant time. Further, the admitted testimony was that she had been an undischarged bankrupt for the past thirteen or so years as of her January, 2023 examination for discovery.

[10] I was also referred to an Ontario License Appeal Tribunal decision in which the defendant, Sepideh Moazzani sought to overturn an October 17, 2019 decision by the Registrar for the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act 2002 to suspend and revoke her registration as a sales person. That hearing listed proceedings occurring over 21 dates between November 19, 2019 to April 27, 2023. That decision reviews Sepideh Moazzani's conduct in a variety of transactions where she allegedly misappropriated funds. At paragraph 56 of the decision, this matter, called the Maison Prive transaction, was referenced.

[11] There was also reference to the use of an account belonging to the defendant, Ali Moghtadaei (at paragraphs 82 and 85). Further, the Request to Admit stated that the defendant, Ali Moghtadaei attended with the defendant, Sepedeh Moazzani in Florida in February, 2020 to meet with the plaintiffs.

[12] That evidence, uncontested by contrary evidence from the defendants, was relied on to demonstrate Ali Moghtadaei's involvement and that he was the beneficiary of the scheme and funds forwarded,

[13] The plaintiffs' cause of action alleged breach of contract, conspiracy and unjust enrichment. The evidence clearly supports the breach of contract as against Sepedeh Moazzani and Judgment shall be granted as against her.

[14] Further, the involvement described above and as detailed regarding Ali Moghtadaei in the Request to Admit (at paragraphs 42 to 49) results in his having participated in the breach of contract. In addition, it meets the elements of conspiracy (see Agribrands Purina Canada Inc. v. Kasamekas, 2011 ONCA 460 at paragraph 26). Ali Moghtadaei received funds and thus was unjustly enriched.

[15] As a result, Judgment shall be granted as against Ali Moghtadaei. In submissions, a draft Judgment reviewed contained multiple versions of his name, one of which Ali Moghtadaei advised was his father (Seyed-Majid Mir-Moghtadaei). Counsel for the plaintiff agreed to remove that name from any Judgment granted. The defendant, Ali Moghtadaei did not dispute inclusion of the other various versions of his name and those variations shall be included in the formal Judgment.

[16] There were also submissions for an award of punitive damages. Counsel for the plaintiffs conceded that this required conduct as referenced in Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2006 SCC 30 (at paragraph 62). In instances of breach of contract, an independent actionable wrong is required. The threshold of conduct required was "described as malicious, oppressive or high handed and that offends the court's sense of decency".

[17] That decision also referenced and relied on the principals that governed and awarded punitive damages as set out in Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18 (paragraph 94) which starts with such an award being 'very much the exception rather than the rule'. From a review of the evidence being relied on, being the unanswered Request to Admit dated March 3, 2025, and the selective readings from the defendant's examination for discovery, I do not find the conduct of the defendants rises to that level.

[18] As a result, the claim for punitive damages is dismissed. Plaintiffs counsel sought an award of $100,000 but acknowledged having no prior reported decision with knowledge or circumstances to support that request. It should also be noted that in submissions, the decision of Justice Steele, November 12, 2020, was referenced where it was the conduct of the plaintiffs which required injunctive court relief be ordered as against the plaintiffs.

Costs

[19] Regarding costs, counsel provided a Bill of Costs setting out partial indemnity fees claimed at $88,671.60 plus HST ($11,527.31) rising to a $133,007.40 for substantial indemnity fees plus HST ($17,290.96) and disbursements of $32,350.58, inclusive HST. While that Bill of Costs did not include portions of the action where costs had been dealt with (interim injunction September 23, 2020, contempt motion November 3, 2020 and motion to set aside Mareva and Anton Piller orders on November 3, 2020), there is no breakdown as to what time was expended on the main action and what was connected to the counterclaim.

[20] Further, with regard to the disbursements, I raised concerns over the "Independent Supervising Solicitor" account for $17,500 and "Examinations and Transcripts" account for $8422.45. I requested copies of invoices to support same be uploaded to Case Centre. That does not appear to have occurred. I was also advised a Rule 49 Offer to Settle had been made which may also involve the counterclaim.

[21] As a result, I defer fixing costs to the judicial official who determines the counterclaim. Prejudgment interest is awarded at the rate provided for in the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43 being 0.5 percent per year from July 28, 2020 to the date of judgment on the Canadian equivalent of $194,500 which I have calculated and award to be the Canadian equivalent of ($26.64383 per day for 2,046 days to March 5, 2026), or $54,513.27.

[22] For clarity, post judgment interest is also awarded at the rate of 4 percent per year commencing on the date of judgment.

Conclusion

[23] The plaintiffs shall have judgment as against Ali Moghtadaei (also known as Ali Majid-Moghtadaei, Sayed Houman Mirmoghtadaei) and Sepideh Moazzani (also known as Sepideh Moazzanikouchisfah), jointly and separately for breach of contract in conspiracy in the Canadian equivalent of $194,500 USD.

[24] No order is made with regard to the counterclaim.

[25] Regarding the interim order of Justice Steele, I decline to set it aside given the counterclaim is yet to be determined.

[26] The claim for punitive damages is dismissed.

[27] Any award of costs is deferred to the judicial official who determines the counterclaim.

Mr. Justice G. Dow

Released: March 5, 2026