Nedaneg Financial Corporation v Talebzadeh
Nedaneg Financial Corporation
Pedram Talebzadeh
Law Firm / Organization
Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP
Arman Talebzadeh
Behnaz Aliabadi
Forest Hill Real Estate Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Diamond Realty Developers Inc.
Mehdi Gol Mohammadi Darian
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Kamran Mahdi
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Iraj Mahdi
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Winona Park Towns Ltd.
Moshe Eichorn
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Winona Park Developments Limited
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
2819152 Ontario Corporation
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
In the case of Nedaneg Financial Corporation v Talebzadeh dated September 14, 2023, the plaintiff, Nedaneg Financial Corporation, had sought certificates of pending litigation for four properties collectively referred to as the "Properties": 464 Winona Drive, 466-468 Winona Drive, 171 Cedric Ave, and 139 Denlow Blvd. They had claimed that the defendants, Pedram Talebzadeh, his son Arman Talebzadeh, his wife Behnaz Aliabadi, and two development companies, Winona Park Towns Ltd. and Diamond Realty Developers Inc., were the defendants and that Pedram was the beneficial owner of the Properties. The plaintiff had also alleged that mortgages on these Properties were fraudulent conveyances. The case had had its origins in a judgment against Pedram for a mortgage default on the Grangemill Property, which had resulted in a partial sale of that property. Pedram had claimed the sale was improvident. Later, the plaintiff had initiated a new proceeding involving the Properties. Arman had owned the Cedric Property, which had been subject to several mortgages. Behnaz had purchased the Denlow Property, also with multiple mortgages. The Winona Properties had been owned by Winona Towns, with substantial mortgages. Various cautions and liens had been registered against these properties. The plaintiff's motion for CPLs had ultimately been dismissed by the court. The judge had determined that it had not been just and equitable to grant the CPLs. Additionally, the request for a preservation order had been denied, as it had not met the necessary legal criteria. The parties are encouraged to resolve the issue of costs.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-22-00684974
Civil litigation
Defendant