Shahryar Mazaheri

This endorsement addresses the costs following the Law Society of Ontario’s unsuccessful attempt to place Shahryar Mazaheri’s law practice under trusteeship.

The court reviews the parties’ submissions, the relevant by-laws, and the principles governing costs, ultimately awarding Mr. Mazaheri $2,000 in costs for the main proceeding and $1,500 net after offsetting $500 in costs to the Law Society for the costs proceeding.

The court emphasizes the limited entitlement of self-represented litigants to costs and the absence of grounds for punitive or full indemnity costs.

The Law Society of Ontario applied to be appointed as trustee over the law practice of Shahryar Mazaheri and Mazaheri Law Professional Corporation, seeking to preserve and distribute client property and wind up the business following Mr. Mazaheri’s interlocutory suspension.

The court found that the Law Society failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence to justify the appointment of a trustee or the immediate winding up of the practice, emphasizing that a suspension alone does not automatically warrant such a remedy.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation brought an application against a unit owner for harassing staff and management and for failing to comply with a new pet rule regarding building entry and exit.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's pattern of abusive emails constituted an annoyance and disruption under the Condominium Act regulations, violating the corporation's harassment rule.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to cease all abusive communications, comply with the pet rule, and pay $1,200 in costs.

The appellant's motion for leave to appeal the decision of Charney J. was dismissed as abandoned.

The responding party was awarded costs in the amount of $5,000.

This endorsement concerns the costs of a successful motion by the Defendant to strike the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim.

The Defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $15,000, citing the Plaintiff's unreasonable conduct and a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The Plaintiff argued for no costs or partial indemnity, claiming the Defendant's costs were exaggerated and their offer to settle was not effective.

The court awarded the Defendant partial indemnity costs of $9,000, finding the Plaintiff's conduct did not meet the high threshold for substantial indemnity, and the Defendant's Rule 49 offer did not trigger enhanced costs because it was not more favourable than the amount recovered when evaluated at the time of the offer.

Following a successful summary judgment motion where the plaintiff established a real estate partnership, the plaintiff sought costs.

The defendant opposed, arguing costs should wait until the ordered accounting was complete, but failed to submit his own bill of costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff her full claimed partial indemnity costs and disbursements, noting her significant success, the complexity of the matter, and the reasonable fees charged by her counsel.

The moving party sought summary judgment arising from a joint real estate venture in which residential property was acquired in the responding party’s name, renovated, and intended to generate rental income.

The court held that the objective documentary record, including written agreements, bank records, and contemporaneous communications, established a partnership under the Partnerships Act rather than a loan or tenancy arrangement, and declared that the responding party held the property in trust for the partnership with the moving party having a 50 percent beneficial interest.

The court further found breaches of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, and breach of the partnership agreement where unauthorized mortgages were registered without consent, and directed a reference to an Associate Judge to complete the partnership accounting and quantify damages tied to excess mortgage debt.

A permanent injunction was granted restraining further interference with the moving party’s use and enjoyment of the property, and the counterclaim was effectively defeated by the summary judgment ruling.

The defendant, Copart Canada Inc., brought a motion to strike the plaintiff, Filler Depot's, Statement of Claim in its entirety or in part.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to plead material facts and essential elements for claims based on unlawful means tort, oppression, conspiracy, deceit, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court agreed, finding these causes of action were not properly pleaded.

The court also addressed a recusal motion brought by the plaintiff's counsel, which was dismissed as lacking grounds.

The court ordered the plaintiff to deliver a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim within 30 days, striking the improperly pleaded claims with leave to amend.

A case conference was held to discuss the process for an upcoming mini trial.

The court directed the parties to exchange witness lists, proposed evidence, and any additional materials by January 20, 2024, emphasizing the principle of proportionality.

This appeal concerned a dispute between a condominium corporation and unit owners regarding persistent non-compliance with fire safety rules, which led to a lower court order granting the corporation a writ of possession and the right to sell the unit.

The appellants (unit owners) appealed, arguing the motion judge erred by not applying the oppression test under the Condominium Act, failing to consider the corporation's enforcement obligations, and making errors in factual findings regarding their compliance efforts and exceptional circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the oppression arguments were new issues not raised in the lower court and that the motion judge's factual findings, which were entitled to deference, supported her conclusion that the appellants failed to comply with clear court orders.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration of a 50% beneficial ownership interest in a property and a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from interfering with her use of the property due to alleged assaults.

The defendant disputed the partnership and the assaults, claiming the plaintiff made false police reports.

The court found that the assault allegations raised a credibility issue and directed a one-day mini-trial under Rule 20 to hear oral evidence from the parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking payment of funds misappropriated by the defendants, who had previously been subject to a Mareva injunction and held in contempt of court.

The defendants' counsel of record requested an adjournment, arguing he was not formally served, though he acknowledged having no instructions from his clients who had absconded.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the defendants had actual notice and were using procedural technicalities to delay.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, ordering the release of funds paid into court, transfer of specific accounts, payment of misappropriated amounts, and a tracing order.

The plaintiffs obtained a Mareva injunction against their former employee, the defendant, who diverted funds from the plaintiffs' bank accounts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to release $50,000 of the frozen funds held in escrow to pay their legal fees.

The court found that the plaintiffs established a proprietary right to the funds and authorized the release of $50,000.

The court also ordered the defendant to pay $39,000 into court from her personal Alipay account and to produce a further and better affidavit of documents that complies with Rule 30.03(2).

The plaintiff brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation on a pre-construction corner lot, claiming inadvertent cancellation of the purchase agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff's claim to an interest in the land dubious, noting inordinate delay in bringing the motion, and concluding that the property was not unique and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The balance of convenience also favored the defendants, who had a pending sale to a third party.

The Sahebdivani defendants were successful on a motion for security for costs and sought full or substantial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiff's conduct was disorganized and protracted the proceedings.

The court found that while the plaintiff's situation was somewhat disorganized, its conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous behaviour required for an elevated costs award.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $12,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The Sahebdivani defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The defendants established good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, citing evidence that the plaintiff was inoperative, its sole director was an undischarged bankrupt, and it faced significant environmental remediation orders.

The plaintiff failed to meet its onus to demonstrate sufficient exigible assets, providing inadequate financial disclosure.

The court granted the motion and ordered the plaintiff to post $75,000 in security for costs in installments.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary an order dated December 22, 2020, which transferred a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court to be tried together with the current action.

The plaintiff sought to vary the order to specifically state that the two actions are to be consolidated, as the original endorsement allowed for consolidation but the draft order did not.

The defendants consented to the relief.

The court granted the motion, finding it necessary to vary the order to conform with the original endorsement.

The plaintiff brought a motion to vary a previous order dated December 22, 2020, which transferred a Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court to be tried together with the current action.

The plaintiff sought to vary the order to specifically state that the two actions are to be consolidated, conforming with the original endorsement.

The court granted the motion and varied the order to provide for consolidation.