Abedi c. Pourjamshid (Succession de) 2013 QCCA 1942 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-021889-118 (500-17-043590-085) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: November 4, 2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE PIERRE J. DALPHOND J.A. JULIE DUTIL J.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH J.A. APPELLANT COUNSEL AMIR ABEDI Mtre Reevin Pearl PEARL & ASSOCIÉS RESPONDENTS COUNSEL THE ESTATE OF REZA POURJAMSHID MOSHEN POURJAMSHID Mtre Antonella Petrolito ME ANTONELLA PETROLITO

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENTRENDERED ON JUNE 27, 2011 BY THEHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIERRENOLLET OF THE SUPERIOR COURT,DISTRICT OF MONTREAL NATURE OF THE APPEAL: Loan Clerk: Asma Berrak Courtroom: Pierre-Basile-Mignault HEARING 14:39: Beginning of the hearing.14:39: Submission by Mtre Pearl.16:00: Submission by Mtre Petrolito.16:03: Suspension of the hearing.16:27: Resumption of the hearing.16:27: Judgment-see page 3.16:29: Conclusion of the hearing.

Asma BerrakClerk BY THE COURT JUDGMENT [1] Faced with a highly contradictory and confusing body of evidence, and witnesses – i.e. the appellant and respondent MoshenPourjamshid – who were, in his view, unreliable, the trial judge concluded that the appellant has failed to discharge his burden toestablish, on the balance of probabilities (art. 2804 C.C.Q.), the existence of a loan of $100,000 to either of the respondents. [2] The Court is of the view that the appellant has not shown that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error in hisappreciation of the context surrounding the issuance of the two cheques at the basis of the appellant's action, including the wordsinserted in the body of such cheques (Brilliant Silk Mfg.

Co. v. Kaufman, (SCC), [1925] S.C.R. 249, at p. 259). FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[ 3 ] DISMISSES the appeal, with costs. PIERRE J. DALPHOND J.A. JULIE DUTIL J.A. MARIE-FRANCE BICH J.A.