) ) Houman Mortazavi Applicant/Appellant/Respondent on Motion – v. –, 2024 ONSC 974

CITATION : Mortazavi v. TSCC 2048, 2024 ONSC 974 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 139/23 and 169/23 DATE: 20240215 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT BETWEEN: ) ) Houman Mortazavi Applicant/Appellant/Respondent on Motion – and – Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation (TSCC) 2048 Respondent on Appeal and Judicial Review/Moving Party ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Self-represented Megan Mackey , for the Respondent/Moving Party ) HEARD: in writing REASONS FOR DECISION Davies J. [ 1 ] In February 2023, the Condominium Authority Tribunal (“Tribunal”) ordered Mr.

Mortazavi to comply with the declaration and rules of Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation 2048 (“TSCC 2048”) related to noise. Mr. Mortazavi was also ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to TSCC 2048. [ 2 ] A Notice of Appeal and an Application for Judicial Review were filed on behalf of Mr. Mortazavi on February 23, 2023. The application and appeal were consolidated and scheduled to be heard on December 19, 2023. [ 3 ] Mr. Mortazavi was ordered to serve and file his materials on the application and appeal no later than October 24, 2023. However, Mr.

Mortazavi did not file any materials in support of his application for judicial review or his appeal. [ 4 ] On December 19, 2023, Mr. Mortazavi sought an adjournment. Mr. Mortazavi told the court he was not aware of the appeal and application until a few days or weeks before. It appears the appeal and judicial review application were filed on his behalf by his wife. [ 5 ] The appeal and judicial review application were adjourned and are now set for February 28, 2024. [ 6 ] The court imposed several conditions on the adjournment. First, Mr.

Mortazavi was ordered to pay TSCC 2048 $500 in costs by January 2, 2024 for the December 19, 2023 hearing date. Second, Mr. Mortazavi was ordered to pay the $5,000 costs award from the Tribunal Hearing to the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice by January 2, 2024. In its reasons on the adjournment application, the court stated, “if either payment is not made by the date imposed, the Respondent may move in writing to quash both the judicial review and the appeal.” The court also ordered Mr.

Mortazavi to provide written confirmation that he authorized the appeal and application for judicial review by January 2, 2024. [ 7 ] Mr. Mortazavi has not made either payment required under the December 19, 2023 order of this court. Nor has he confirmed that he authorized the appeal/application. He still has not filed any materials in support of his appeal or judicial review application.

[ 8 ] TSCC 2048 now seeks an order quashing Mr. Mortazavi’s appeal and application for judicial review. TSCC 2048 argues Mr. Mortazavi’s appeal and application for judicial review are an abuse of process because they have no merit and are simply a tactic to delay the implementation of the Tribunal’s February 2023 decision. [ 9 ] Mr.

Mortazavi did not file any materials in response to the TSCC 2048’s motion to quash. [ 10 ] This court has jurisdiction to quash an appeal if it is manifestly devoid of merit or if it is an abuse of process designed solely to delay the implementation of the decision under review: Courts of Justice Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, ss. 21(3) and 134(3) , Solomon v. Levy , 2015 ONSC 2556 (Div. Ct.), at para. 34 . However, the Divisional Court should only exercise its discretion to dismiss an appeal or application for judicial review for delay in clear cases: Democracy Watch v.

Ontario Integrity Commissioner , 2021 ONSC 7383 (Div. Ct.), at para. 27 . [ 11 ] I am satisfied that Mr. Mortazavi’s application for judicial review and appeal were filed for the purpose of delaying the implementation of the Tribunal’s February 2023 decision. I appreciate that Mr. Mortazavi has had health issues that may have interfered with his ability to participate in these proceedings at times. However, Mr. Mortazavi has not demonstrated any bona fide interest in or commitment to advancing his application/appeal to a hearing on the merits in the last year.

He repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s directions about perfecting his appeal/application and filing the required materials. He failed to comply with the court’s order in relation to paying the outstanding costs awards. He even failed to confirm that he authorized the proceedings. [ 12 ] In the absence of a proper record and factum from Mr. Mortavazi, it is also plain and obvious that his application for judicial review and appeal will not succeed. [ 13 ] The motion is, therefore, granted. Mr. Mortavazi’s application for judicial review and appeal are quashed.

The February 28, 2024 hearing date is vacated. ___________________________ Davies J. Released: February 15, 2024 CITATION : Mortazavi v. TSCC 2048, 2024 ONSC 974 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 139/23 and 169/23 DATE: 20240215 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT BETWEEN:

Houman Mortazavi Applicant/Appellant/Respondent on Motion – and – Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation (TSCC) 2048 Respondent on Appeal and Judicial Review/Moving Party REASONS FOR DECISION DAVIES J. Released: February 15, 2024