Property Disputes and Trusts in Common-Law Relationships

In the recent case of Aghdasi v. Asiyaban, 2024 ONSC 3472, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed a complex property dispute between former common-law partners Halime Khatoun Aghdasi and Vahid Mehdizadeh Asiyaban. Halime and Vahid were in a common-law relationship from 2002 to 2017. They jointly and separately acquired various properties, some in their names and some through their company. The case centers on disputes over two properties:

1. Deerfield Property: Registered under the defendant [Vahid’s] corporation but claimed by Halime as jointly owned.
2. Ellis Property: Registered under Halime’s name, with Vahid disputing Halime’s sole ownership and claiming it was part of a joint family enterprise.

Claims:

• Halime: Seeks resulting or constructive trust for the Deerfield Property and damages for the distress sale of the Ellis Property caused by Vahid’s actions.
• Vahid: Claims ownership interests and seeks to set aside documents acknowledging Halime’s ownership based on undue influence and duress.

Court’s Findings:

• Deerfield Property: Halime was awarded a 50% interest due to her contributions and intentions, supported by evidence.
• Ellis Property: Vahid’s claims were dismissed. The court found no basis for his ownership interest or undue influence claims.
• Additional Claims: Vahid’s late claims of a joint family enterprise and other ancillary claims were rejected.

Main Takeaways:

1. Resulting and Constructive Trusts: The court can recognize beneficial ownership based on contributions and intentions, even if the property is not registered in the contributor’s name.
2. Credibility and Evidence: Reliable, contemporaneous documentation is critical in property disputes. Halime’s detailed and supported evidence was favored over Vahid’s inconsistent and fabricated claims.
3. Procedural Fairness: The court disallowed Vahid’s late amendments and new theories that were not pleaded initially, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and timely disclosure.
4. Legal Consequences: Fabricating evidence and presenting inconsistent accounts severely undermine credibility and legal standing in court.

Decision:

The court granted judgment in favor of Halime, affirming her 50% interest in the Deerfield Property and dismissing all of Vahid’s claims, including those related to undue influence, conversion of luxury goods, and other damages.