Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: CV-24-94886

Date: 2026-02-11

RE: DANI KHOURY, Plaintiff

AND: OMAR ABDUL GHANI, REEMA CHAMSEDDINE, FAYEZ EL-CHAMAAA, YASSER ABD AL GHANI and CEDAR WOODWORK, Defendants

Before: C. MacLeod RSJ

Counsel: Matthew Glass, for the Plaintiff Bryan Delaney, for the Defendant, Chamseddine

Heard: February 11, 2026

Endorsement

[ 1 ] This is a motion for judgment against all of the defendants except for Reema Chamseddine who is represented by Mr. Delaney and has defended the action. The matter came before me in December but the defendant Chamseddine ("Reema") objected to judgment against Omar Abdul Ghani ("Omar").

[ 2 ] The basis for the objection was concern about how it might impact the family law proceeding between Omar and Reema and whether it was contrary to findings made by Audet J. at the trial of that action described in her reasons released last March. ( 2025 ONSC 1583 ). I granted judgment against three of the defendants and adjourned the question of judgment against Omar until today, to permit Reema's counsel time to investigate and to file material.

[ 3 ] In the event, no further affidavit evidence was filed. I am left with the statement of claim, undefended by Omar and his consent to judgment. I also have the affidavit of the plaintiff ("Dani") and that of Reema which were before the court in December.

[ 4 ] Ordinarily, where a statement of claim makes out a claim against a defendant and the defendant does not defend the action, let alone where a defendant consents to judgment, none of the other defendants would be affected by the consent and would be protected by the right to crossclaim. Subject to the requirements of disclosure in the case of Pierrenger or Mary Carter types of agreements [^1] , if all but one of the defendants choose to admit the claim against them and to consent to judgment for the full amount, this does not prejudice the remaining defendant.

[ 5 ] The complication in the current situation arises from findings made in the family law proceeding. The plaintiff in this proceeding was not a party to the family law proceeding but was a witness. It had been alleged by Omar that the matrimonial home (of which Omar and Reema were the beneficial but not the registered owners) was subject to a form of unregistered mortgage in favour of Dani.

[ 6 ] Audet J. rejected that position and held that the home was not subject to any such encumbrance. She did not, however, go so far as to hold that there was no claim against Omar. She was aware of this proceeding. At paragraph 73 of the decision she held that "Dani's entitlement, if any, to the payment of this alleged debt is a personal claim against Yasser and Omar." She held that "Dani has no valid security for the repayment of that alleged debt".

[ 7 ] Justice Audet's findings regarding assets and debts for the purpose of addressing net family property are attached to her decision. No credit was given to Omar for the debt in question. Audet J. determined that an equalization payment of $5,710 would have been due to Reema by Omar but she ordered an unequal division because of what she found to be Omar's unconscionable depletion of his (equitable) interest in Cedar Woodwork. In the end, Omar was ordered to pay $65,710 to Reema.

[ 8 ] I understand that Omar launched an appeal but as of this date the appeal has not been perfected. That may or may not occur and the appeal may or may not be dismissed for delay or may otherwise be resolved. Reema's concern is that a judgment in this case against Omar might permit Omar to revisit the judgment in the family law case, particularly if his appeal is successful and a new trial is ordered. Needless to say, I have my own views about the likelihood of that occurring, having regard to my colleagues careful and thorough reasons, but I cannot rule it out as a hypothetical possibility. Omar, of course, is not before the court today as he has consented to the requested judgment and has not appeared.

[ 9 ] Dani's statement of claim in this matter was drafted before the judgment in the family law case. It does assert the existence of an unregistered take back mortgage but it does not depend upon it. It also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment due to amounts advanced by Dani, funds paid on behalf of Omar or Cedar Woodwork, payment of the mortgage on the matrimonial home and providing furnishings to Omar and Reema.

[ 10 ] As noted, Reema is defending the action. Part of her defence may be issue estoppel or res judicata in relation to the findings of my colleague but I do not see why the plaintiff cannot assert a claim against Omar and why Omar cannot bind himself to pay the debt jointly and severally with his co-defendants. The consent to judgment post dates the findings in the family law proceeding and in any event it will be open to Reema to argue that his consent is an improvident or even a fraudulent consent to judgment. Even if the findings in the family proceeding do not bind Dani, they certainly bind Omar.

[ 11 ] In conclusion, I am granting judgment against Omar based on his failure to defend this action and his consent to judgment. This is without prejudice to Reema amending her defence, adding a crossclaim for contribution and indemnity or issuing third party proceedings. It is also without prejudice to any subsequent motion to stay Dani's judgment against Omar should it interfere with execution or enforcement of the judgment in the family law proceeding. Finally, it does not tie Reema's hands to object to recognition of this debt in any bankruptcy proceeding.

[ 12 ] In short, I am granting the judgment in favour of the plaintiff against Omar but I am not making any findings that are binding on Reema. Omar may oblige himself to pay Dani but he cannot assert that the consent judgment affects Reema's right to defend this action or to enforce her judgment against Omar.

Justice C. MacLeod

Date: February 11, 2026

[^1]: See Rule 49.14, Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 as amended