Heydary Affidavit

Court File No.
LS 025/13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (Estates List) BETWEEN THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA Applicant and JAVAD HEYDARY, HEYDARY HAMILTON PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, HEYDARY ELLIOTT PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, HEYDARY GREEN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, HEYDARY HAVES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,and HEYDARY SAMUEL PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
Respondent APPLICATION UNDER the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990,' c.L.8, ss. 49.44 to 49.52, as amended.
AFFIDAVIT OF LAWRENCE A.I3ADBAVNY

Sworn November 22, 2013 _
I, LAWRENCE A. HADBAVNY, of the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1.
I am licensed to practice law as a barrister and solicitor in the Province of Ontario by the "the La~v Society"). I am employed by the Applicant, the Law Society of Upper Canada( Law Society as the Senior Legal Counsel in its Trustee Services Department and as such, I have personal knowledge of the matters hereinafter deposed to except where same are stated to be based upon information and belief and where so stated, I believe them to be true.
iZ
-2BACKGROUND
2.
"Heydary") is a lawyer who was called to the Bar in The Respondent, Javad Heydary( Ontario on February 22, 2001, and carries on business variously as Heydary Hamilton Professional Corporation, Heydary Elliott Professional Corporation, Heydary Green Professional Corporation, Heydary Hayes Professional Corporation, and Heydary Samuel Professional Corporation from offices located at 66 Wellington Street West, Suite 4500, Toronto, Ontario MSK 1H1 (the "Toronto Business Premises") and 42 Village Centre Place, Suite 200, Mississauga, Ontario L4Z 1 V9(the "Mississauga Business Premises").
3.
Heydary is a director and the sole or majority shareholder of each of the said professional corporations. I refer to Heydary and the professional corporations collectively herein as the "Heydary Group". There are a number of other lawyer licensees associated with the Heydary Group, some of whom are shareholders and/or directors, who have not been named as individual respondents at this time. I refer to the operations carried on by the Heydary Group, particularly the practice of law and the provision of legal services, as "Heydary's Business".
4.
Heydary is presently the subject of Law Society investigations into serious allegations of professional misconduct, which include:
misappropriation of client trust funds; mishandling trust funds; and breach of a court order requiring the return of trust funds to a client.
MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRUST FUNDS
5.
In November 2013, the Law Society received information and communications from lawyer Ray Thapar on behalf of his clients, the Abuzours. Mr. Thapar advised as follows:
-3 Heydary Hamilton Professional Corporation( "Heydary Hamilton") received $3.6 million in settlement funds Funds"); trust for the Abuzours in April 2013 (the "Abuzour
in
In a series of Orders and Endorsements in Court File No. CV-12-9960-OOCL in November 2013 (Endorsements attached as Exhibit "A"), Heydary Hamilton was ordered to deliver $2.1 million to counsel for the Abuzours and provide independent confirmation that the remaining $1.5 million plus interest remained in trust;
LJ Heydary Hamilton has failed to comply with the Orders: the funds have not been returned and no independent confirmation of that funds remain in trust has been provided;
Heydary left the country on Friday, November 15, 2013 after the first Order was made and knowing that it had not been complied with.
6.
On Thursday afternoon, November 21, 2013, Michael Spagnuolo, Forensic Auditor at the Law Society was advised by Nirmala ,Singh, lawyer at Heydary Hamilton, that the balance in Heydary Hamilton's mixed trust account is $319,067.82. Attached as Exhibit "B" is a bank statement for the mixed trust account provided by Ms Singh. Therefore, there are trust shortages well in excess $3 million.
POSSIBLE ABANDONMENT OF PRACTICE
7.
In addition to Heydary's departure, the Law Society received information regarding the resignation of numerous lawyers who practised law as part of the Heydary Group. Presumably this is in reaction to the various allegations and investigations.
8.
Heydary's Business is large, spans several practice areas, and the abandonment or partial abandonment of the various operations has serious implications for innumerable clients whose interests may not be protected.
1~
9. On November 22, 2013, I attended at the Toronto Business Premises with Pamela Morgan, Unclaimed Trust Officer with the Law Society. Ms Morgan and I met with several lawyers and support staff and obtained the following information:
The lawyers and support staff indicated that Heydary would be a very strong and disruptive presence in the office. They are concerned about him returning to the office;
Many of the lawyers, including those who have resigned, indicated that they would stay on for a few days in order to deal with client matters and protect client interests, but will leave if Heydary returns to the office.
TRUSTEESHIP APPLICATION
10.
The facts outlined above support the following grounds for a trusteeship under section 49.47 of the Law Society Act:
Javad Heydary is the subject of investigations under the Law Society Act involving possible professional misconduct, which include allegations of misappropriation, mishandling trust funds, and failing to comply with a court order;
There are reasonable grounds to believe that Javad Heydary and/or the Heydary Group has or may have dealt improperly with property in connection with Heydary's Business, and in particular, that he/they may have dealt improperly with trust funds;
There are reasonable grounds to believe that one or more of the Heydary Group have abandoned Heydary's Business without making provisions for the protection of clients' interests.
~6 -5 There are reasonable grounds to believe that circumstances exist in respect of the Heydary Group and Heydary's Business that make the relief requested necessary for the protection of the clients and the public.
11.
I believe a Trusteeship Order is required in order to protect the interests of the clients of Heydary's Business, to the extent that it is determined that any such clients have been abandoned and/or neglected and/or no provisions have been made for the protection of their interests.
12.
I believe a Trusteeship Order is required in order to identify, recover and preserve the funds that are or should be in-the Heydary Group's possession and control, and to take control over any existing trust accounts and Teranet accounts where necessary to protect the interests of clients and the public.
13.
Given the way in which Heydary's Business is organized and operated through various entities, the ongoing resignations of lawyers associated with Heydary's Business, and the uncertainty about the nature and extent of involvement required by the Law Society at present, the Law Society requires the authority provided by the Trusteeship Order for the purpose of identifying and addressing the issues and ensuring. the protection and preservation of client property and interests.
14.
The Law Society is the only party with the ability and authority to ensure the protection of clients and the public in the circumstances surrounding the Heydary Group and Heydary's Business.
SWORN before me at the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, this 22nd day of November, 2013. ---, Lawrence Ha avny
A Commissioner, etc.

Heydary Affidavit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heydary Affidavit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heydary Affidavit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Court File No.

AFFIDAVIT OF LAWRENCE A.I3ADBAVNY

MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRUST FUNDS

POSSIBLE ABANDONMENT OF PRACTICE

You might also like