Layeghpour v Rashidi, 2024 ABKB 88

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Layeghpour v Rashidi, 2024 ABKB 88 Date: 20240215 Docket: 2201 10137 Registry: Calgary Between: Shahin Layeghpour Appellant/Defendant - and - Leila Rashidi Respondent/Plaintiff _______________________________________________________ Supplemental Decision on Appeal from Alberta Court of Justice Civil Division of the Honourable Justice Robert A.

Graesser _______________________________________________________ Background [ 1 ] On November 28, 2023, I issued a decision 2023 ABKB 674 on Shahin Layeghpour’s appeal from the decision of Justice D Higa in the Alberta Court of Justice, which had dismissed Mr. Layeghpour’s application to open up a default judgment obtained against him by the Plaintiff, Leila Rashidi.

[ 2 ] In that decision, I noted that I had invited Mr. Layeghpour to file affidavit evidence by October 31, 2023 supporting expenses he claimed to have incurred pursuing a patent for the process he encouraged Ms. Rashidi to invest in. The Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim alleged that despite requests for proof of Mr. Layeghpour incurring expenses to pursue a patent, none had been provided to her. [ 3 ] At the hearing before me, Mr. Layeghpour insisted that he had incurred expenses pursuing the patent, which impacted on Ms. Rashidi’s rights under the agreement they had made. [ 4 ] Not having heard from Mr.

Layeghpour or received any materials from him by October 31, I proceeded to issue my decision on November 28. [ 5 ] On January 11, 2024, Mr. Layeghpour wrote one of the Court’s Judicial Assistants advising that he had indeed filed materials with the Clerk’s office in Calgary by the appointed deadline. [ 6 ] On investigation by me, it appears that Mr. Layeghpour did file three affidavits on October 19, 2023. Through misadventure, the materials were not provided to me until after January 11, 2024. [ 7 ] As a result, it is appropriate that I revisit the decision on the basis of the information provided by Mr.

Layeghpour. New Information [ 8 ] I realize the procedure I adopted is somewhat unusual. However, I was concerned from Mr. Layeghpour’s oral submissions that there might be an arguable defence on the merits. Mr. Layeghpour’s arguments before me as well as before Justice Higa focused on his contention that Ms. Rashidi should have sued him in Iran and that the law of the contract was Iran. [ 9 ] The Agreement between the parties purports to limit Ms. Rashidi’s remedies if Mr. Layeghpour had made “any payment to a patent agent” or he had “initiated the process for registration” of the patent. [ 10 ] Mr.

Layeghpour sent three affidavits. The first affidavit was from Mr. Layeghpour’s mother, Maryann Sadat Faraji, sworn in Iran on October 10, 2023. She says that she returned to Iran on January 7, 2022. She says she wrote a cheque from her personal account for 2.35 billion Iranian Rials (approximately $10,000 Canadian) to Hassan Afejo Dana, on her son’s instructions. [ 11 ] The second affidavit, also sworn on October 10, 2023 in Iran, is from Hassan Afejo Dana. He acknowledges receipt of these funds from Ms. Faraji on January 10, 2022. He says that he was contacted by Mr.

Layeghpour sometime in December 2021 for the purposes of providing patent assistance to Mr. Layeghpour. Mr. Dana says that on January 23, 2022 he advised Mr. Layeghpour that he had done a patent search and reviewed the materials, but that he could not proceed with they were paid to him to provide assistance to Mr. Layeghpour because it would not succeed. [ 12 ] The third affidavit, sworn by Mr. Layeghpour on October 18, describes the chronology of his mother returning to Iran and paying Mr. Dana on January 10, 2022, the same day the agreement between Mr. Layeghpour and Mr. Dana was signed. Mr.

Layeghpour says he decided to use a patent agent in Iran as that would be more economical than using a Canadian Patent Agent. He says he was told by Mr. Dana on January 23, 2022 that a patent registration would not be successful. He appends the agreement with Mr. Dana, who signs as “Patent Agent”. Mr. Layeghpour also takes issue with the Plaintiff’s credibility. Analysis [ 13 ] The circumstances in this matter as best I can determine from the pleadings and submissions are that Mr. Layeghpour had an idea that he thought might be patented.

He lacked the funds to have someone assist him with the patent process and he could not afford to use anyone in Canada. He persuaded Ms. Rashidi to invest in his idea, giving her a 1% interest in his idea in exchange for $5000. Shortly after that, he persuaded Ms. Rashidi to give him an additional $3000. There is no explanation as to what Ms. Rashidi was to get for the additional $3000 she paid him, and no documentation of that transaction was provided. There would appear to be a total failure of consideration for that payment or loan and no valid basis on which Mr.

Layeghpour could resist returning the money to Ms. Rashidi. [ 14 ] It is interesting that almost immediately after receiving money from Ms. Rashidi, Mr. Layeghpour made contact with Mr. Dana in Iran and had his mother travel to Iran to provide Mr. Dana the retainer he was looking for. Mr. Dana had not yet started to perform any services for Mr. Layeghpour. [ 15 ] Mr. Layeghpour’s mother used approximately $10,000 Canadian in Iranian Rials of her own funds to pay Mr. Dana. From the information provided by Mr. Layeghpour, I cannot conclude that Mr. Layeghpour paid Mr. Dana anything.

It was his mother who made the payment. There was no information provided as to what his mother’s interest in the invention was, if any, or whether Mr. Layeghpour ever reimbursed his mother for the payment made to Mr. Dana. It is not clear that Mr. Dana used all of the money he received or returned some, as his services appear to have been minimal. Beyond conducting a patent search and conduction some evaluation, nothing was done to pursue the filing a patent application. [ 16 ] I thus cannot conclude that anything was actually spent by Mr.

Layeghpour to pursue the invention. [ 17 ] I am unconvinced that this new evidence amounts to an arguable defence. The Agreement between Mr. Layeghpour and Ms. Rashidi had her pay $5000 to Mr. Layeghpour for a 1% interest in his patent. The agreement limits her right to a refund “ after a payment is made to a patent agent and/or initiation of the process for patent”. [ 18 ] What the new materials show is that almost immediately after Ms. Rashidi paid the funds to Mr. Layeghpour, he contacted Mr. Dana. This was Mr. Dana’s first involvement on this matter for Mr. Layeghpour. Within two weeks, Mr.

Dana had done a patent

search, reviewed what Mr. Layeghpour had sent him, and concluded that the idea could not be patented. This strongly suggests that until Mr. Layeghpour received money from Ms. Rashidi, he had done nothing concrete to pursue a patent registration or application. [ 19 ] I have a number of problems with having Mr. Layeghpour’s mother’s payment to Mr. Dana being characterized a “payment made to a patent agent/and or initiation of the process for patent.” Essentially, Mr. Layeghpour’s argument is that once he spent Ms. Rashidi’s funds, she could no longer get them back.

It was not even her funds that were spent; they were his mother’s. Her interest if any in the invention is unknown. The agreement between the parties suggests a much more developed plan that was much further along than it appears to have been. [ 20 ] Ms. Rashidi invested a lot of her money in what was discovered within a month to be worthless. That by itself is not necessarily problematic as she was investing in something for which a patent had not yet been granted or even applied for and the agreement contemplated the risk that a patent application might not be successful. [ 21 ] Ms.

Faraji’s affidavit says that she used her money to pay Mr. Dana. It does not say that she was in investor herself in Mr. Layeghpour’s prospective patent. It does not say that she was reimbursed by Mr. Layeghpour for the payment she made to Mr. Dana. [ 22 ] Mr. Layeghpour makes no attempt in his affidavit to account for the funds paid to him by Ms. Rashidi. It may be that he wants me to draw the inference that he used Ms. Rashidi’s funds to pay Mr. Dana. If that is the case, I hardly think a reasonable

interpretation of the agreement between Mr. Layeghpour and Ms. Rashidi would be that as soon as he spent the money she paid him, she could only get it back if he was able to sell her interest in his “invention” to someone else. [ 23 ] The payment to Mr. Dana (if he is indeed a patent agent) is not well explained. His affidavit does not describe his background or occupation. The agreement was for a patent search, evaluation of Mr. Layeghpour’s “invention” and assistance in preparing a patent application. Mr. Dana only performed a patent search and evaluated Mr. Layeghpour’s ideas.

Nothing appears to have been prepared, and there was no patent application ever prepared. I do not know if any part of the fee was eventually returned to Mr. Layeghpour or Ms. Faraji, as the contract between Mr. Layeghpour and Mr. Dana contemplates significantly more than a search and initial advice. [ 24 ] Mr. Layeghpour’s response to what he did to try to find another investor to take Ms. Rashidi’s position was that he did nothing, as there was no point because there was no value to the idea and he abandoned the project. [ 25 ] The information provided does not convince me that Mr.

Layeghpour has a reasonable prospect of defending against Ms. Rashidi’s claim. It also does not convince me that there would be any miscarriage of justice if the default judgment is allowed to stand. [ 26 ] As a result, I will not change my decision. Justice Higa made no reviewable error on the materials before him. I am not satisfied that an arguable defence has been made out by the additional materials I allowed Mr. Layeghpour to file. [ 27 ] Mr. Layeghpour’s appeal is dismissed. Heard at Calgary Alberta on October 6, 2023 Dated at Edmonton, Alberta this 15 th day of February, 2023. Robert A.

Graesser J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Shahin Layeghpour Appellant/Defendant (self-represented) Leila Rashidi Respondent/Plaintiff (self-represented)