Shahrokhi v. Yazdani

2025 BCSC 531 Shahrokhi v. Yazdani

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Shahrokhi v. Yazdani, 2025 BCSC 531 Date: 20250228 Docket: S234302 Registry: Vancouver Between: Homa Shahrokhi and Vangate Immigration Consulting Inc. Plaintiffs And Afshin Yazdani d.b.a. Yazdani Law Group and YLG Professional Corporation Defendants Before: The Honourable Madam Justice Sharma Oral Reasons for Judgment In Chambers Counsel for the Plaintiffs: N. Abrahams Counsel for the Defendants: A. Salgado Place and Date of Trial/Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. February 28, 2025 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. February 28, 2025 [1] THE COURT: This matter came before general chambers today, and it was stood down because of the volume of matters before the court. I also wondered initially if it could be heard in general chambers, or needed a whole day. In addition, the applicants (who are the defendants) were actually seeking to adjourn their own application, so that they could apply to cross-examine one of the plaintiffs. This all takes place in the context of the plaintiffs' having received default judgment against the defendants in December 2023. [2] Counsel for the defendants appeared by MS Teams, as did the personal applicant/defendant Afshin Yazdani. [3] Counsel were told to return to court at 2:00 p.m., at which time, depending on how many referral judges became available, I would determine which matter had priority,

or, possibly, I would set a date for the application to be heard, potentially peremptorily on the defendants. [4] The matter was called after 2:00 p.m. Counsel for the plaintiffs (who are the application respondents) was here appropriately. Counsel for the defendants was not. I asked the plaintiffs' counsel contact counsel for the defendants to relay that I was expecting them in court. The plaintiffs' counsel indicated in the past he had difficulty connecting with the other side. The matter was again stood down. [5] The matter came back before me at about 3:00 p.m. Counsel for the plaintiffs informed me that he tried to call several times and he sent an email but received no response. [6] [CLARIFICATION OF ORDERS SOUGHT BY THE PLAINTIFFS] [7] I am concerned by counsel's non‑appearance. In reading through the application response, it is also concerning that the plaintiffs object to conduct of one of the defendants and he happens to a member of the Law Society of Ontario. This is concerning to the Court. It is also concerning that counsel representing him and the other defendant did not return to Court as directed by me. There is always the possibility that some disaster has struck them, which I hope is not the case, but in the interim, there is no reason not to grant the orders sought by the plaintiffs given the other side's non-appearance. [8] Having read through the notice of

application and the application response, I am satisfied it is appropriate to grant the orders sought by the plaintiffs (to dismiss the defendants' application and another order to do with service), not only because counsel for the defendants did not return and are not here to oppose those orders, which is reason enough, but because it is abundantly clear that it is appropriate to dismiss the application. [9] I am granting the orders sought by the plaintiffs, which is to dismiss the defendants' application. The plaintiffs' counsel also asked that I grant an order declaring that the personal defendant Mr. Yazdani has been properly served. Given the unique circumstances before me and given that he is a member of the Law Society of Ontario, and he appeared in court today by video, and actually attempted to speak, I am satisfied it is appropriate to grant that declaration, although I acknowledge it is a bit unusual. [10] The plaintiffs also seek special costs. I would normally need to do an assessment of costs, but given the unusual circumstances, I am going to declare that the plaintiffs are entitled to special costs to be assessed. In case some disaster has befallen the defendants' counsel, I am granting leave for the defendants (as applicants) to return before me to apply to set aside the orders I am making, so long as they make that request through an online request to appear

no later than seven days from today. [PROCEEDINGS FROM 3:11:32 TO 3:13:07 P.M.] [11] To be clear, the applicants/defendants do have leave to request a hearing before me to set aside the orders I am making today, so long as they make that request through the online "request to appear" portal no later than seven days from today, copied to counsel for the plaintiffs. [12] I have ordered special costs to be assessed by me. If there is no online request to appear filed by the defendants within the next seven days, the plaintiffs may file brief written submissions, no more than five pages, accompanied by an affidavit to quantify the special costs they seek, and those should be directed to Supreme Court Scheduling, to my attention. That should be filed by March 14, 2025. [13] If the defendants/applicants do file an online request to appear, then the Court will give direction to both parties about when the hearing will take place, and, at that hearing, I will address special costs. "Sharma J."