Furney v. Hazan
Steven Hazan
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Ambassador Mortgage Solutions Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
2380376 Ontario Limited
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Ian Minton
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Paulina Diaco Carlile
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Simon A. Hildyard
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Simon A. Overton
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Maryam Furney
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Alex Aidan Furney
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Dominion Lending Centres Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Lawyer(s)

Sahil Kesar

Samir Chhina
Law Firm / Organization
Adair Goldblatt Bieber LLP

Background:

  • The appellants, Maryam Furney and Alex Aidan Furney, filed a claim related to mortgage transactions.
  • They alleged that defendant Steven Hazan, a mortgage broker, misrepresented that $580,000 was placed in trust with lawyer Samir Chhina, but the funds were later misused.
  • They also claimed that Mr. Hazan instructed Mr. Chhina to register a collateral mortgage without their consent, which led to financial losses.
  • The appellants sought damages of $8-9 million.
  • The motion judge struck the claims against Dominion Lending Centres Inc. ("Dominion") and Mr. Chhina under Rule 21.01 and awarded costs against the appellants.

Court’s Decision:

  1. Claim Against Dominion - Appeal Dismissed:

    • The court upheld the motion judge’s decision, finding no factual link between Dominion and the appellants’ allegations.
    • The court denied leave to amend the pleadings, as there was no viable claim against Dominion.
    • The appellants were ordered to pay Dominion $10,000 in appeal costs.
  2. Claim Against Mr. Chhina - Appeal Allowed:

    • The court ruled that the motion judge erred in striking the claim against Mr. Chhina.
    • Two key allegations—(i) unauthorized mortgage registration and (ii) misappropriation of trust funds—warranted further legal examination.
    • The motion judge incorrectly found that Mr. Chhina was protected from liability merely because he followed client instructions.
    • The motion judge also erred in applying the doctrine of res judicata, as the previous ruling did not clearly resolve the same legal issues.
    • The costs order against Mr. Chhina was overturned.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
COA-24-CV-0620
Real estate
$ 10,000
Respondent