Summary

37648

Manoucher Baradaran v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Ontario, et al.

(Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave)

Keywords

Civil procedure - Estoppel - Civil procedure — Seizure and sale — Sale of property to satisfy costs orders — Enforcement procedures — Estoppel — Whether court enforcement offices are required to follow the procedures contained in enforcement manuals published by the applicable Ministries — Whether the public is entitled to rely on enforcement officers complying with the procedures in the enforcement manual — Whether certified appraisals from qualified appraisers are required to determine the fair market value of a property before its sale to satisfy a writ of seizure and sale.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

On January 12, 2016, the Sheriff of the Regional Municipality of York sold the property located at 19 Church Avenue in the City of Toronto at auction for $1,050,000. It had been owned by Mr. Baradaran and/or his wife. The sale was made pursuant to an order that they satisfy costs awards made against them following the dismissals of an action they had filed ($7,750) and their appeal ($750). Pursuant to the costs awards, the creditor filed Writs of Seizure and Sale dated February 19, 2014, and February 24, 2014, with the Toronto and York Regional Sheriffs against various properties, including the Church Avenue property, and made a demand of payment by letter dated September 5, 2014. As the Baradarans had not responded or made payment by July 16, 2015, the creditor requisitioned the Enforcement Office of the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto to begin sale proceedings in respect of the Church Avenue property.

Mr. and Mrs. Baradaran sought to set aside the sale and have the property returned to them arguing that the sale was improvident, that the required process was not followed, and that they were not given notice. Mr. Baradaran acknowledged that they had received notice of the sale on cross-examination during the hearing of the application. The application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Baradaran’s application to adduce new evidence and his appeal.