ONTARIO COURTS ALLOW TO OWN GOODS WITHOUT PAYING

WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY PARTY, THIS WRITE UP IS FOR learning and understanding the importance OF A MINI TRIAL IN A MATTER WHERE A JUSTICE FEELS THERE IS ISSUES OF CONFUSIONS.  PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGEMENT CAN BE PARTIAL. NO PERSON IS ABOVE LAW AND NO JUDGE OR A CLEANER, PEASENT PERSON OR POLICE PERSON, PRESIDENT OR POOR MAN IN A CIVILIZED NATION, all are Equal. 

Jan 09 contract first $22500 payments was not made, signing a contract is only complete if all the payments per the contract are paid in full.

TO prove $22500 Mr. Bhatti since Jan 2009 to May 2009 gave over 5 different version's of payments that I asked him to write in paper as I can not check things and upon checking will confirm payments.

Mr. Bhatti did not pay $22,500 and neither did he pay $10,500.  I challenge a TV show to host a Jury Based Trial On TV and all facts will come out about the issues.

BURDEN OF PROOF

1. Mr. Bhatti, in his underlying claim dated January 2011, failed to meet this burden of proof, by showing that on a balance of probabilities that I had breached the Agreement.
2. The Defendant’s Claim is flawed because the Defendant is reversing the civil burden of proof, by requiring me to proof that the Defendant had breached the Agreement.
3. I believe the Mr. Bhatti, has confused the issues at hand, in order to divert his obligation to pay the requisite amounts under the Agreements.  
4. His Lawyer got made agreement was also not followed for which Mr. Bhatti owes $200,000.00
5. When the non-client is saying contract was done on the 9th of Jan 2009 and that other party has not paid monies, lawyer drafts a trust agreements per his desire.

In Tang v. Zhang, in British Columbia,  A five-member division of the British

Columbia Court of Appeal (the Court) has reversed one of its own recent decisions to hold that where a buyer fails to complete a real estate purchase, the deposit will be forfeited even if the vendor suffers no loss on the sale. The case re-establishes the common law that a deposit on a real estate sale will ordinarily be forfeit when a purchaser fails to complete, and serves to clarify parties' expectations for real estate transactions in B.C. 

But yet, a Partial Judgment Rendered of Hon.  Justice Lorna-Lee Snowie is that there is no need to pay per the contract in order to own the goods.  A buyer that walks out of the contract after being Insolvent ( for 23 months ) can come back to the Courts not only to sell just their unpaid shares per market value without paying in full. But to sell the other parties goods also. 50% owned by family member, then their rights are also sold.  This is highway robbery by the Superior Courts of Ontario for the rights of children or spouse.  

How can Justice Snowie allow an ( 3 years of ) insolvent buyer to take back his unpaid shares from a seller.  A buyer that calls him self " Tenant in Common " via his lawyers self serving forged dates and signatured documents.   To sell the Shares of the other shareholder's that holds 95% shares.  

Buyer really did not pay a penny for the house and got his 50% shares for free as courts to not care about checking what was paid and what was not.  

Buyer Azeem Bhatti is master con artist and he had no money and used to count same money 4 times.  Rent checks are counted as his money towards payments and yet he has not paid in full per the contracts the down payments of $32500. If there is a trail the truth of Azeem Bhatti will come out.  

IF Azeem Mohammad Bhatti is honest Person I challenge this gang to sit on a lie detector tests with me.  Theives do not have balls that is why they steal.  Thieves are low life people.  Thieves are people that work in gang to take things from other for free and by fooling and do not have guts to do an lie detector tests.


All courts can as legally is allow Mr. Bhatti to just sell his shares of 50% property upon payments for the Goods, and all the dues till 8/8/2012 of $79000 approx.  


In Ontario there is no need to buy Property to sell Property.   An insolvent buyer has to first pay all the monies unpaid or due to the sellers to claim rightful ownership of the Goods if the contracts allows to own again after being insolvent. 

Superior Courts Ontraio and malicious prosecution  

When asked for a trial, a mini or regular trial was avoided by making an abrupt Partial Summary Judgements.   

Judges in Ontario can gang up on you and pass illegal costs to bury a person down and so people do not ask for the rights or come back to courts for Justice.

The threat used by the Superior courts Judges of Ontario is called costs as no one is interested in truth.  All are interested to protect interest of each other.  One Judge has to support another, Judge has to support a person that comes with a Lawyer etc etc.  Its not about law its about money and harrasements.

Ontario superior courts is good example of " Power Corrupts example " and few Judges and are pure sadist in nature or purposefully sadist to people shell out money and become poor.

Superior Courts of Ontario are as illegal as match fixing players are illegal in India cricket.

Judges in Superior Courts of Ontario are just looking to make monies for the lawyers and no one is interested in the Law.  
Ontario should look at Civil ( ex-police offices, teachers, student lawyers, businessmen as Pre Justices ) Judges are only needed, if the PreTral feels that a trial is needed.

STEAL PROPERTIES.





The very nature of Law for any matter of confusion is trial. When a person counts or frauds and counts money more than once it calls for a trial. Or a matter is filled with issues like Justice Snowie stated then not partial judgement but trial is needed. 

Here is another case below, where a Policeman was conned like I was by Junaid Kayani and Azeem Bhatti and Lawyer Soni - Conspired to Obstruct Justice.

"A former policeman acquitted of corruption charges years after prosecutors learned their star witness - his former girlfriend - had been sleeping with one of the Ontario Provincial Police officers investigating the case, has got a green light to sue two judges for malicious prosecution.

Mr. Justice Brian Trafford of Superior Court and Mr. Justice William Wolski of the Court of Justice were the prosecution lawyers who shaped the case against former Waterloo Region officer Kevin Roy Hawkins, charged in 1988 with selling tips to the leader of an outlaw biker gang and conspiring to obstruct justice. What the prosecution team knew and when it knew it should be examined, Judge Henderson wrote in dismissing the motion.

"These factual issues will turn in part on the credibility of Trafford and Wolksi and the other defendants have not been fully explored … and should not be resolved on a summary judgment motion."  Judge Trafford and Judge Wolski, elevated to the bench in 1993 and 1997 respectively, had sought dismissal of the case, saying it did not meet the conditions for a malicious prosecution suit.

Mr. Hawkins, 60, who quit the Waterloo police over the criminal charges, is now a realtor for Remax. Launched in 1998, his suit also targets the Attorney-General for Ontario, the Waterloo Region police board and the three police officers who handled the investigation.

Mr. Justice Joseph Henderson of Superior Court has ruled that the case can go ahead.

"There are genuine issues for trial on all the relevant elements of the test for malicious prosecution," Judge Henderson wrote in a ruling last week that rejected the judges' motion for dismissal.

Contrary to  " Sale of Goods" Acts. Sign a contract and don't pay for the contract. Good's are yours even without paying plus you get right to sell the Goods.  And you are allowed to claim any payments two or three times towards the payments to be made to full fill the contracts.

Walk out of the contract when the seller asks for the monies per the contract.  The Agreement or contract that was to be paid in full by Jan 08, 2010 and was not paid in full at all, 
yet courts do not wish to see what is written in "The Agreements" and revoke the rights of the Unpaid Seller.

Basis of every contract is " Sale of Goods " act.  In Real Estate Law, the words are like this for the unpaid seller, " When either party doesn’t meet his contractual obligations and pulls out of the transaction without justification, the deposit may be forfeited and turned over to the injured party. "



If the person becomes insolvent and accepts not to pay dues.  
How can some one come back again after 2 years and ask for the rights of ownership?  

• If Mr. Bhatti would have stated in May 2009, that he will pay the monies then the contract would have still been valid but his declaration of not wanting to pay the dues made him insolvent. Mr. Bhatti was deemed to be insolvent within the meaning of this Act as he ceased to pay his debts in the ordinary course of business or and did not pay for his debts as they become due.
  
  
  
• Buyer can only ask to sell Goods that have been sold to them after they fulfilled the terms and condition's of the contracts to pay for the Goods in full on the day of asking for the sale of the Goods. 
• Instead Mr. Bhatti started a series of New Contracts and started to ask for the monies back that he claimed to have given to Mr. SINGH, confirms his exit from the Jan 09, 2009 contrat and insolvency.
• If Mr. Bhatti wants his shares without paying for the contracts, that is up to courts to get a value on the house in May 2009, when Mr. Bhatti walked out of the contracts.

THE FACTS ABOUT " the Agreement " of Jan 09. 2009 

• Mr. Bhatti had till Jan 08, 2009 to pay for the $10,050.00. 
• Mr. Bhatti did not pay $22500 in full also other than false " TO BE considered " statutory declaration sworn and written by Eva Mcleod, in and by Mr. Bhatti's lawyers.  False because Mr. Bhatti claimed different times, different amounts towards the $22,500.00. Some times he added his labour, some times money paid to his lawyers to some how show that he has in fact paid $22,500.00.
• Mr. SINGH, there after May 2009, did not follow up with Mr. Bhatti about payments and dues as decent person should not once the buyer Mr. Bhatti, declared insolvency in writing and started to ask his past monies back that was paid for any contracts'
• Courts of Appeal did not consider the exit of the Mr. Bhatti in writing as my Lawyer Harjaap Mann of Mann Law offices, did not bring it up to the courts of appeal bench when asked by Judges, and hence, a false decision was made  that one can walk away from the Jan 09, 2009 contracts and still own the rights and not be insolvent.
• Yet its obligation of Mr. Bhatti to pay for the 50% shares in full before Mr. Bhatti can get legal possession of his Goods or Property along with monthly expenses
• Mr. SINGH noted Mr. Bhatti in default for $79,647.00 towards unpaid dues of Mr. Bhatti.
• Only when Mr. Bhatti pays $79,647.00 can he legally ask his shares and further ask for sale of the Goods or the Property. Or can ask his shares to the courts per the value of the Goods in May 2009.  
• Buyer can not stop for paying for the 100 kilo of GOLD in say 1955 and say to seller, the he need to sell his 100 kilo of GOLD in 2012 that Buyer could not pay in 1955, without first paying all the terms of the contracts that was signed in 1955 and new value of difference in value to Goods since 1955 to 2012 has to be calculated in order to accommodate, an insolvent buyer from 1955 to year 2012.
• One can not ask for sale of Goods that have not been paid in full and all the terms have been followed.

WHY IS THIS " SALE OF GOODS CONTRACT " ?

If a contract is made by lawyer's ( Arif Raza ) of the Buyer purposefully, without any standard clause and to take advantage of the seller illiteracy of contract laws, it shall be treated as a " Sale of Goods Act ".  As a single family dwelling can not be bought partially and that shows the eagerness of the RazaKayani Law first to take unfair advantage of the Mr. SINGH and also make offer of their client in non-standard format purposefully.   The whole contract was drafted by Eva Mcleod of Arif Raza and Junaid Kayani's law offices is flawed and possibly invalid as it was totally worded not per the law and without any standard clause.  Hence the Mother of all Goods in sales is " SALE OF GOODS ACT ", shall come into play for this Jan 09, 2009 contracts.

The Statutory Declaration - Good to Get, but No Guarantee

The BC Supreme Court decision in Beatty Floors Ltd. v. KTM Development Corp. is a case in point. 

So what good did the statutory declaration do? Observations:

• You might like to think that a statutory declaration won't be falsely sworn. It does provide some assurance. But you can't count on it. A statutory declaration cannot guarantee compliance, and the remedies are limited. In this case punitive damages were awarded, but generally punitive damages are rare.
• No word yet on whether the "perjury" aspect of the statutory declarations was enforced. It's doubtful. By virtue of the Canada Evidence Act, if a person swears a false declaration, then that is the same as if the person made a false statement in Court. That is the essence (i.e. the "statutory" aspect) of a statutory declaration. However the criminal sanction incorporated by the statute rarely comes into play.
• Azeem Bhatti's, declaration in front of Eva McLeod was " TO BE " considered if all the monies were paid per the contract.

How was Honorable Justice Snowie, attention very easily, diverted from Real Issues of Payments to non-valid Issues in a Summary Judgement Motion

1. Updated factum served by Gopesh Soni of SONI law, 15 hours before, so respondent ( Mr. SINGH ) can not check on the facts and Gopesh SONI was granted abridgement of time by Hon. Justice Snowie.
2. Intent to mislead via a fake “Chain of Events” ( hereafter called COE ), To make perjury more trustworthy a COE looks and sounds more correct and believable in the Superior Courts.  STEP 1:  March30th – Agreement Signed, STEP 2: April 02 – PR1622023 registered, STEP 3: April 06 – Mail sent.  In reality all three events were fake.
3. Mr. SONI is a very smart lawyers, he wanted to divert on the day of " Partial Summary Judgements " from payments per the contracts " , which he knew his client has not paid to totally irrelevant direction and paint a credibility picture around the Trust Agreement date and modifications.
4. Since Mr. SONI could not prove that monies were paid in full he started to bring issues about " TRUST Agreements " that were totally irrelevant.  The game was to divert the mind of Honorable Justice Snowie from real issue of Unpaid - Money to the irrelevant issues of dates and changes in Trust Agreements and Law Society Issues.
5.  If Hon.  Snowie, would have read the trust agreements ( even the one that is disputed ) she would have seen that even that disputed Trust Agreements was not followed and paid and was based on the Jan 01, 2009 contract that does not exist and the same disputed trust agreements asks Azeem to pay monthly expenses in full from which walked out.
6. In fact Hon. Justice Snowie was only shown two pages of the agreements while there were actually 8 to 10 pages.  And on most other pages " Jan 09, 2009, contract was mentioned ".

• Trust Agreement was based on the Jan 01, 2009 contracts that does not exist, and real contract of Jan 09, 2009 was never paid in full till insolvency in May 2009.
• Trust Agreement of March 30th, 2009 does asks Mr. Bhatti to pay monthly expenses that Mr. Bhatti did not pay and walked out in May of 2009. So Mr. SINGH became unpaid seller in May of 2009. Both for the Jan 09 and added agreement of His Trust Agreements.
• Trust agreements was purposefully made on a day that I did not visit the offices of the Junaid Kayani so if Mr. SINGH, says about validity of the agreements then courts will think some thing fishy.
• Courts looked at that as escape goat when Mr. SINGH, stated about reporting Mr. Kayani to the Law Society, where Mr. Kayani knew very well that his client from day one has only paid $12,200 out of which 4000 was rent and 3200 was for rental contracts and 5000 for failed purchase
• Mr. Kayani would have purposefully made agreements on another day and changed the original because of past experience as this way the person being sued will divert from the original issues not full filled in the contracts to the contract it self
• When one attacks the validity of a contract the courts take it as an trying to escape the matter.
• Stating in The Courts, that its fake gave false impression about trust that Mr. SINGH is trying to avoid the contracts.
• If Justice Snowie did read the full Trust agreements, she would have noticed that even that modified " TRUST AGREEMENTS " was not followed by Mr. Bhatti.
• But civil law is about attacking and confusing the courts, and not about truth and that is why a long hearings or mini- trials is the only way to know the truth, where the issues are not black and white.
• Mainly the Trust Agreements was tenant in common that only give 50% shares of the house for which beneficiary and trustee and the owner of the rest of the house is same person.  So 100% owner is Mr. SINGH.  A trustee can not be removed by beneficiary and there is no article in the contracts to sell the house.

In fact trust agreements is more beneficial for Mr. SINGH, like Jan 09, 2009 contracts. As both of the contracts were never followed by Mr. Bhatti.  The game in Partial Summary Judgement is to fool the Justice in very short hearing by confusing the Justice in senseless matters and then other party has to spend money to fight the decisions.

Its not very difficult to fool a Justice in a very short Summary Judgement hearings.  As its very easy to take a matter of Money info some other angel.  Lots of lies can be feed to a Justice via one day before documents and false chain of events.

The Lawyer that made the self serving Trust agreement's also states that all monies have not been paid in full, yet the courts give the house for free and give me looses over $350,000.00 dollars.

A trial was asked on the 8th of August 2008 and instead of giving trial, lawyers made sure all the monies of Mr. SINGH is sucked by just talking so Mr. SINGH can not have a trial.  All Lawyers jointly took $70,000.00 from Mr. SINGH. Lawyers fees till now.  
"Mann Law Offices - $20,000.00 
Golan Yaron of Derushalaw Firm 
Family  Matter-  $5,225.00 
CV-11-3916-00    $18,947.29  ( fooled me for months and then started a new file )
CV -13 - 5613 - 00   $6,294.00 + $300 = $6594.00 ( in this file never served the other party and when I did note the person in default after serving my self, Golan told me that other party will file some thing the same day and notified other party that they have been noted in default )

Mississaugalawyer.com romesh@mississaugalawyer.com took $14,500.00 
from me via costs order when one goes to courts to listen to your pleadings."

Court File No. CV-11-3916-00

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

PART IV
RIGHTS OF UNPAID SELLER - AGAINST THE GOODS

Interpretation

37.  (1) The seller of goods shall be deemed to be an “unpaid seller” within the meaning of this Act,

(a) when the whole of the price has not been paid or tendered;

(b) when a bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument has been received as conditional payment and the condition on which it was received has not been fulfilled by reason of the dishonour of the instrument or otherwise.

PER FILE CV-13-5613 Azeem Mohammad Bhatti owe's me $79647 dollars.  He does not file a statements of Defence and the courts accept an email that I sent to his lawyers stating that matter is same ( for the house and for same purpose ),  it considered an valid communications. But Azeem's email in May 2009 is not considered as valid email, where azeem refuses to pay monies for the contracts.

Further romesh@mississaugalawyer.com lies that he sent me a notice for a motion on the 18th of February,
 the only message he send was on the 19th and received by me on the 21st for a motions.  Also 
romesh@mississaugalawyer.com said they do not need to follow the law to file a statement of defence.

   


New Ruling may allow to sue judges for malicious prosecution .  So in future no Judge thinks of hurting  children and purposefully breaking the family house when the issues is very confusing a small trial of some sort is needed.  

Power Corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely. 

" A former policeman acquitted of corruption charges years after prosecutors learned their star witness - his former girlfriend - had been sleeping with one of the Ontario Provincial Police officers investigating the case, has got a green light to sue two judges for malicious prosecution.

Mr. Justice Brian Trafford of Superior Court and Mr. Justice William Wolski of the Court of Justice were the prosecution lawyers who shaped the case against former Waterloo Region officer Kevin Roy Hawkins, charged in 1988 with selling tips to the leader of an outlaw biker gang and conspiring to obstruct justice.  Judge Trafford and Judge Wolski, elevated to the bench in 1993 and 1997 respectively, had sought dismissal of the case, saying it did not meet the conditions for a malicious prosecution suit. Mr. Hawkins, 60, who quit the Waterloo police over the criminal charges, is now a realtor for Remax. Launched in 1998, his suit also targets the Attorney-General for Ontario, the Waterloo Region police board and the three police officers who handled the investigation.

Mr. Justice Joseph Henderson of Superior Court has ruled that the case can go ahead.

"There are genuine issues for trial on all the relevant elements of the test for malicious prosecution," Judge Henderson wrote in a ruling last week that rejected the judges' motion for dismissal. These factual issues will turn in part on the credibility of Trafford and Wolksi and the other defendants have not been fully explored … and should not be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

.

Court File No. CV-13-5613-00

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

A SINGH -Plaintiff

and

MUHAMMED AZEEM BHATTI - Defendant

AFFIDAVIT OF A SINGH

I, A Singh, of the City of Mississauga, Province of Ontario, make oath and say as follows:

1.     I am the Plaintiff in this matter and as such, I have direct knowledge of the matter hereinafter deposed, unless facts are stated to be based on information and belief.  Other matters that I do not have personal knowledge of I verily believe them to be true, and I do so for no improper purpose.  

2.    On January 9, 2009, I and the Defendant signed an Agreement (“Agreement”) whereas I was to sell fifty percent (50%) of the property located at 1856 Silverberry Crescent, Mississauga, ON (“the property”), for a total purchase price of $32,250.00.   Exhibit “ A” .

RECONSIDER THE ORDER OF HON. JUSTICE SNOWIE BASED ON THE OFFENSE OF PERJURY

3.    Honorable Hon. Justice Snowie was very reluctant and saw may issues that were black and white and she was really not sure if this motion is right for the Summary Judgment’s.  But using perjury as tools the Defendant (“Mr. Bhatti”) proved to Honorable Justice Snowie that its OK and correct for her to give an Partial Summary Judgments’.

4.    Perjury, the crime of lying under oath, is a serious offense because it can derail the basic goal of the justice system, which is to discovering the truth. Exhibit “ B” .

a.    Mr. SONI, lawyers of Mr. Bhatti lied to Honourable Justice Snowy that they were able to Register an Article PR1622023 against the property on April 02, 2009.

b.    The reality is the Land Registry Offices on the April 02, 2009 had denied their application.

c.    If Mr. SONI and or Mr. Bhatti, were honest that on April 02, 2009 their application for the Article was rejected the decision of Justice Snowie would have been totally different. 

1.     Honourable Justice Snowie could have been more vigilant as to why did the Land Registry deny their applications as their application those reason’s were very important for this matter.

2.     Was it legal for them to make a registration without consent to the Mr. SINGH and without paying the Jan 09, 2009 contracts in full.

3.     Most importantly why did SONI Law Offices lie to Justice Snowie and fooled her by talking about Law Society and divert from the actual matter of money and payments made.  Even if there was a false trust agreements it was based on a contract that was not paid.  But Justice Snowie thought that A. SINGH is saying about false and partial trust agreements because as he is guilty.  

4.     Also, motion records were dropped by an lady employee from SONI law offices on the 7^th of August, 2012 in the evening at home of Mr. SINGH.

5.     Mr. SINGH did not get even get to look at the Submissions that were served by SONI Law Offices on the 7^th that had all these lies written and submitted the Courts.

6.     SONI Law Offices must have done this purposefully as they knew the lies could be detected by MR. SINGH if those document were served few days prior.

7.     SONI law offices was allowed “abridgement of time” on 8/8/2012 by the Courts for motion material served on the evening of 7^th of August 2012.

d.    Such false information is what changed a very reluctant Justice that sated clearly that there are so many facts in issues to make a decision.

e.  Intent to mislead via a fake “Chain of Events” ( hereafter called COE ), To make perjury more trustworthy a COE looks and sounds more correct and believable in the Superior Courts.  STEP 1:  March30th – Agreement Signed, STEP 2: April 02 – PR1622023 registered, STEP 3: April 06 – Mail sent. 

•  All the 3 STEPS of COE events were fake and false just to gain trust of Justice Snowie.
• Even to Law Society Mr. Kayani failed to give time of visits on the 30^th of March by A. SINGH and Azeem M. Bhatti.
• April 02, 2009 no PR1622023 was rejected by Land Registry.
• April 06, 2009 no letter was mailed but was mailed on November 10, 2009.

f.      The letter below was checked by Canada Post Main Sorting Offices in Toronto,  by Lennox Green, who stated that it was mailed on 10^th of November 2009.

g.    Mr. Bhatti via his lawyers gave a story to Justice Snowie as facts that were actually lies.  So the order of Justice Snowie judgments was totally based on lies fed to her by Lawyers Mr. SONI and Mr. David Lipkus based on Affidavit of Mr. Bhatti.

BEHIND THE SCENE GAME

5.    APRIL 02, 2009.  Possibly Mr. Bhatti arrives to the offices of Junaid Kayani law offices as early as 9 a.m. Mr. Kayani, takes all the documents from file from 23^rd of March 2009, to sign and put any date for “COE” on the documents as dates were asked not to be entered on the 23^rd of March 2009 by Mr. Kayani.  Mr. Kayani, enters 32th day of March or was actually writing the date of the day 2 of April and then saw March on the paperwork’s and that it looked 2^nd day of March, so they needed to change that and very carefully added first the lower circle of 3 and then added very small upper circle of 3 before the 2. If this date entered wrong in front of me, then we could have done it again on another printout of the same documents. 

6.  Lets examine how Mr. Kayani wrote 30^th on other occasion’s.  Mr. Kayani on the 2^nd of April sent these documents to the Land Registry and the application was denied.  But Mr. Kayani learned important lesson from Land Registry offices, what part of the Documents, not to show next time to get the trust of the COURTS.

7. But regardless of their faking the documents the Land Registry did not accept their submissions. The 23^rd March, 2009  agreements between Mr. SINGH and Mr. Bhatti had most pages were crossed by Mr. SINGH and that Mr. SINGH wrote in black and white that all contracts are per the Jan 09, 2009 contracts. 

8.    I beg the Courts to consider who am I up against. Not some regular lawyers but a gang of lawyers, Arif Raza, Said Mohamdally and Junaid Kayani.  These people are mentors and guides of Mr. Bhatti. 

9.    In fact, Mr. Bhatti, should have requested his lawyer to write me a letter outlining his concerns, and Mr. Kayani should have informed me to obtain independent legal advice. 

ALL CONTRACTS WERE BASED ON THE JAN 09, 2009 CONTRACTS

10. My claim on CV-13-5613-00, states even if there was modified Trust Agreement, that Mr. Bhatti was granted 50% ownerships, was per the Agreement Dated Jan 09, 2009.

11. The above file No: is 09053, that was rejected by the Land Registry as invalid on April 02, 2009 and the Lawyer SONI law offices did not disclose the truth to the COURTS.

12. Once Mr. Bhatti was noted in default on CV-13-5613-00 and Mr. SINGH advised that to his Lawyers Golan on the 18^th via email in the evening, who further told Romesh Lawyer of Mr. Bhatti about being noted in default, and Romesh, started this paperwork’s on 19^th and lied to the courts that it was done on the 18^th. 

13.  I followed the law and noted Mr. Bhatti in Default for the CV-13-5613-00. Sharpe, MacFarland and Pepall JJ.A of Courts of Appeal, are totally wrong about the decision as a trial was requested on the August 8th 2012.  Harjaap Mann did not bring these points to the attention of the Courts of the Appeal Judges. Trial was not granted and also further a Partial summary was given on contract where by Justice Snowie her self stated that there were too many issues of confusion to give an " Summary Judgement ".  Harjaap Mann further lied to the Courts of Appeal Judges when they asked if the Azeem walked out of the contracts.  Azeem Bhatti in May walked out of contract and futher did not pay the $10,050 and $22500 in full also to bind the contracts.

14.  During this entire proceeding, the Defendant has been made numerous  inconsistent statements and provided false information, which reduces his credibility and claims. 

15. Payments made by the Defendant was to be credited towards the purchase price, for a total amount of $32,500.00.  The credit of $6000 out of which approx. $4500 of works was done in electrical panel, washer and dryer and a stove and has been stated in the Statements of Claim’s.

16.  A payment for $3,200 was agreed by Mr. Bhatti to have been made in December 30, 2008, but was not made and also a payment of $5,000 per “ The Agreement”, to be paid by cashier cheque was later replaced by $4000 of deposits done by Mr. Bhatti to my accounts.

17. Regardless even if all the amounts are accounted double - double Mr. Bhatti was no where close to $32500 and his paid total only comes to $8200, so not per  “The agreements”, of Jan 10, 2010.

18.  Per the Jan 09, 2009 agreements, upon paying the $22,200 in full, the remainder after this credit was $10,050.00, to be paid by the Defendant within 12 months of the Agreement (thus by January 2010) and all and unpaid dues were to be paid with 3.5% interests.

19. On March 23, 2009, Mr. Bhatti took me to his lawyers offices to sign many documents for him to be able to pay and own his shares and to add him on the title. 

20. Since Mr. Bhatti wanted to take the property without paying as he had no monies and was unable to get mortgage so his friend and  a Lawyer, Mr. Kayani, introduced an Agreement called, a (“Trust Agreement”), I always insisted per the Jan 09, 2009 agreements pay in full for the $32,500 and $115,000 for the Mortgage and own what you have promised to own.

Mr. Bhatti’s Agreements and No Monies

21.   I was driven on the March 23^rd 2009 by Mr. Bhatti to his lawyers.  Mr. Bhatti accepts here that is all per the Jan 09, 2009 agreements.

22. I ask Mr. Bhatti about who the lawyer was that I met today on the March 23rd, 2009:

1.    Mr. Bhatti purposefully gives a wrong name (Junaid kiani.his number is on my desktop Will give u tommorrow ). Why does Mr. Bhatti lie about a lawyer that is his friend and misspell his name to Mr. SINGH and not give either phone number or full before or after the meetings also.

2.    If Mr. Bhatti or his Lawyer had any issue they could have taken Mr. SINGH to courts on March 23^rd 2009.  But since all was working per their planning, the need to take to courts around Jan of 2011.

3.    When I left the offices of Junaid Kayani our last conversation was that his 50% shares will be valid if per agreements he pays $32500 in full and pays into RBC $115,000.00.

4.    Junaid Kayani or Eva never responded to my phone calls or email’s as all they wanted was my one signature. Every Lawyers that I met till today just show me the second page of the Trust Agreements and ask did you sign this, and I say yes and they say OK.

5.    This group from Pakistan works very closely and very tightly and they know how Judges think so they are one step ahead of most Judges. I met my realtor “ Adnan Hashmi “ via his father who was my agent to sell “ Telcom-Services “ to his community as he owns a new paper of Pakistan Origin. Adnan Hashmi asked me to use his services as an realtor and once he listed my house he only brought people from Pakistan as other agents, buyers etc.

6.    I never wanted to move back to 1856 Silverberry Crescent, Mississauga, Ontario, but I was paying for all the dues, all the taxes, all the mortgage and all the repairs. Mr. Bhatti never wanted to pay his share of expenses and was always asking others to pay for his expenses.

7.    I even put an ad in the Kijiji After the Jan 09, 2009 contracts and Mr. Bhatti, would shoo off any prospective tenants from the house for the upper portion of the house to be rented and paid for by Mr. SINGH from March 2009 per our Jan 09, 2009 contracts.  Mr. Bhatti had rented and paid for Jan and February 2009.

                            

23.  On walking out I remember telling Mr. Kayani that I will send total of all amounts that Mr. Bhatti has paid me since I met him via Adnan Hashmi, including failed House Purchase Forfeited monies, Rental Agreements monies, Rents Deposited and any works that may have been done in the house prior to the Jan 09, 2009.

24. I some how via online research got contact information of Junaid and Eva and wrote them an email. 

25. I never concluded on any agreements and sent an email the next day to Eva and Junaid to talk further where we left off,  no one responded and that was first and last time that I ever met Junaid Kayani and second time that I met Eva McLeod.

WHAT HAPPENED – A METAPHYSICAL THEORY

26. The Trust agreement was totally changed by Defendant but yet this agreement states that it is dependent on the Jan 01, 2009 contracts.  Which is actually a rental contracts. Exhibit “      ”  , and not the real Jan 09, 2009 contracts.

27.  It was also agreed mutually, via email and further in Many Sworn affidavits of Mr. Bhatti, by both party, that Mr. Bhatti is liable for the lower half and Mr. SINGH for the upper half of the house expenses.

28.   These same points were repeated by Lawyers of Mr. Bhatti in a self serving Trust Agreement.  That also provided that the Defendant will be responsible for 50% of all the property expenses, including the mortgage, heat, hydro, water, taxes, and other maintenances costs then than $32500 and his share of $115000 in Mortgage.

29.  Based on the Rental Agreement of Jan 01, 2009 and for $32500 down payments for the Jan 09, 2009 contracts, Mr. Bhatti’s, name was added to the RBC bank account, in which the Defendant would pay all rental income and $32,500 down payments and other on going expenses.  However, the Defendant closed this account a few months later after verbal and writing in Email that he wants nothing to do with the property. 

30. May be Mr. Bhatti’s email to want nothing from the property was to make sure I do not start any legal proceedings on Mr. Bhatti or ask him for the dues and balance of the payments per the Jan 09, 2009 contracts.  There is no reference to any Trust Agreements even by May of 2009.  As any agreement was to make sure he pays the Jan 09, 2009 dues.

31.  I never in my life ever had heard the word Trust Agreement prior to March 23^rd 2009 and was not told to me by Mr. Bhatti that we are just visiting his Lawyers offices for a Trust Agreements.  Its was sneaky attack by very legally aware people.

32.  In Mr. Kayani’s offices I mentioned I don’t understand what you are doing but every thing is per the Jan 09, 2009 contracts that I have signed with your clients.

33. The initial on the first page is not mine on the Trust Agreement is dated March 30, 2009 and I attended at Defendant lawyer’s office on March 23, 2009 as I was out of the country on the 30^th.  I had told and clearly written on the last pages of their so called “ TRUST AGREEMENT” , based on the Jan 09, 2009 agreements.  Later they dissected the pages of Agreements, Used fist pages for some thing and last few pages for some thing else and lied to the Courts that it was just two page agreements. Exhibit “    ”

34. As per my previous lawyer’s Statement of Claim, the Defendant has paid me a maximum of approximately $8,500.00, towards his 50% interest in the purchase price of the property and on going expenses.  

35. Therefore, the Defendant has not paid all monies owed to me under the Agreement and his Trust Agreement.

36. The Defendant is required to pay the following money as per my Statement of Claim.

NOTICE OF DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO BE SET ASIDE

37. Upon the Defendant being Noted in Default on February 18, 2014 for $79,647.00, I emailed my Lawyer Golan Yaron, copy of noting in Default.

38. Mr. Yaron had then informed me that, “with respect of advising the other side of the noting in default, the very nature of the noting in default is that once you noted the person in default, he is not entitled to any further notice of the proceedings.  I can see that you have set out the rule to Romesh, which clearly indicates that the person who is noted in default is not entitled to any further notice of the proceedings”. 

39. Under the default judgement, the Defendant owes me $79,647.00. 

40. The Notice of Default was set aside on February 28, 2014, with no proper notice given to Applicant per the Civil Procedures.

41. The Lawyers of Mr. Bhatti stated that they had served me the Notice Of Motion on the 18^th of February, 2014, but now they say it was, February 19, 2014, in their Motion Record dated March 4, 2014.   One day makes night and day difference as the 18^th  of April, 2014, was the day where they were noted in default for this matter of CV-13-5613-00. This proves their Motion on the 28^th of February 2014 was not per the laws.

42. The lawyers of Mr. Bhatti also said its very easy for him to set aside an Notice of Default aside.  And that he had asked my Lawyers Golan very early not to note them in Default.  I can mutually agree to put my Notice aside and Honorable Justice Snowie’s order aside till Mr. Bhatti provides his statement of Defence and this courts are able to make decision on the CV-13-5613-00.

BURDEN OF PROOF

43.  The Defendant, in his underlying claim dated January 2011,Court File No. CV-11-3916-00, failed to meet this burden of proof, by showing that on a balance of probabilities that I had breached the Agreement. 

44. The Defendant’s Claim is flawed because the Defendant is reversing the civil burden of proof, by requiring me to proof that the Defendant had breached the Agreement.

45. I believe the Defendant is confusing the issues at hand, in order to divert      his obligation to pay the requisite amounts under the Agreements.

46. Since I have spoken to Mr. Bhatti’s lawyer, Mr. Bhatti has failed to give me an accounting and confirmation of the total amounts that Mr. Bhatti has paid towards the property.  I have received the impression that Mr. Bhatti does not believe it is important or relevant to convince myself or the court that he paid the requisite amount of money. 

47. To this date, I have failed to receive confirmation that the requisite amount of money has been paid towards the property.   

48. Justice Snowy said on her decision day that all monies have to be paid in full and further Courts of Appeal also stated that Jan 09, 2009 contracts stands and not to walk away from that Contracts.

49. There is monies owed by Mr. Bhatti and he and his lawyers feel they are above the Law and other people have no right to ask for monies that others are owed.

50. If the underlying Agreement of Jan 09, 2009 is not fulfilled then any Trust Agreement are not fulfilled or valid, as they are all based on the Jan 09, 2009 agreements. 

51. The Defendant is not facing the reality of his failure to uphold his end of the bargain. 

 I have noted him in Default for not following the Procedures of the civil law.