The following is DRAFT of the Major Nourhaghighi's Winning Factum before the highest court in Ontario in which Major Nourhaghighi won a case against the most experience Law Firm, Deacon, Spears, Fedson, & Montizambert LLP, specialist in the Ontario Condominium Act with $1500.00 award of Costs to Major Nourhaghighi Court File No: M 32976 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO BETWEEN: MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI Applicant (Responding Party) -and- CABER MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. JOHN BEDFORD, JOHN MORIELLI, LISA BLAIR; METRO TORONTO CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 935 Respondents (Moving Parties)

1. The following is DRAFT of the Major Nourhaghighi's Winning
Factum before the highest court in Ontario
in which Major Nourhaghighi won a case against
the most experience Law Firm, Deacon, Spears, Fedson, &
Montizambert LLP,
specialist in the Ontario Condominium Act
with $1500.00 award of Costs to Major Nourhaghighi
Court File No: M 32976
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
Applicant (Responding Party)
-and-
CABER MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. JOHN BEDFORD, JOHN
MORIELLI,
LISA BLAIR; METRO TORONTO CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION
NO. 935
Respondents (Moving Parties)
RESPONDING PARTY’S FACTUM
Rule 61.03.1(8)of Rules of Civil Procedure
PART I
STATEMENT OF FACTS
(2) The self-represented Responding Party (“Applicant”) admits the allegations
contained in Part II paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 13 of the Moving Parties’
Factum dated October 17, 2005 (hereafter referred to as the “Respondents’
Factum”).
2. The Applicant denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 6,

2. 7, 8, 9, 11, and
12 of the Respondents’ Factum, as the Counsel omitted the productive facts.
3. The last line of paragraph 1 should be corrected to read: “…respect
to two Motions for adjournments brought by the Respondents”, on October 19,
and 22, 2004.
MOVING PARTIES’ MOTION RECORD TAB 6 Respondents’ Notice of Motion
pp.57 & 58
p.57: (b)(ii) an Order a adjourning the hearing of the Application, presently
scheduled to be heard on October 22, 2004; (iii) an Order
timetable…30
days for Application Record… 30 days Respondents’ material 30
days
for examinations … 45 days re-scheduled of Application
(c) An Order Extending Time…for serving and filing the motion
material…
p. 58: Last line: (4) Rules …3.02(1)-(2)…
2
4. The first and second lines in paragraph 6 should be corrected to
read the
following relieves sought by the Applicant in the Notice of Application:
“[…]originally schedule for two hours returnable October 22, 2004, seeking relieves
inter alia that:
(3) the Respondents cease continuous access to the Applicant’ unit without notice, be
required by a written notice and the Applicant’s written approval have access to his
unit.
The Respondents be required to repair the water damage cause by the common
element.
(4) The court provide Directions for Contempt Proceedings against the Respondents for
disobeying Orders made by the Court of Appeal for Ontario and Justice Boland;
(5) No further proceeding be instituted by the Respondents against the Applicant without
leave;
(6) The Applicant be granted leave for hearing of this application, and the application be
heard and proceeded as an action.“
Mr. Justice Pitt made orders against the Respondents, in accordance to the main
relieves sought in the Notice of Application. The Applicant’s Submissions for

3. Costs before Pitt J. highlighted the Applicant’s success in his Application entitling
him to the award of costs.
“13. There is no doubt that the court granted the most important parts of the
Applicant’s relieves that the Applicant sought, such as: (a) The right of entry for
repair
should not be abused by the police power; (b) The Applicant’s consent for access
is
essential for entry; (c) the Respondents are liable for mould cleaning;
(d) Pitt J ordered that the water damage’s nuisance should be removed by
mentioning the “other work” on his judgment: (d) Pitt J also made the
Respondents are responsible to repair the drywall ceiling; and (e) they should
carry out repairs without charge to the Applicant. He also was successful to get
Oral Direction in regard of Contempt proceedings that all satisfying Rule 57.01.
(1) for him.
MOVING PARTIES’ MOTION RECORD, TAB 3 Notice of Application, p. 15: 1(a)
(b)(d)
TAB 14 Amended Reasons For
Judgment p. 138:11
TAB 17, Applicant’s Submission for Costs,
p. 153: para 13
5. Second line in paragraph 7 should be corrected to read that the
Respondents: “brought a motion under Sub-section 140.(4)(b) of the Courts of
Justice Act and Rules 1.04(1)-(3), 1.05, 2.01, 2.03, 302(1)(2), 14.09, 16.04,
16.08, 25.11, 37, 38, and 77 of the Rules … asking thirteen relieves including (c)
An Order extending and/or abridging the time for serving and filing the Motion
Material … ”
MOVING PARTIES’ MOTION RECORD TAB 6 Respondents Notice of Motion p.
58: para 4
3
6. The Respondents asked for thirty minutes for their motion.
However, Counsel Fedson argued all day on October 19, 2004. He continued his
arguments for adjournments on October 22, 2004 too. The Respondents are
claiming $9528.68 for Costs of Motions.

4. MOVING PARTIES’ MOTION RECORD TAB 16 Bill of Costs p. 144-46
7. The Applicant asked for two hours hearing of his application. The
Respondents titled his application as “Application for Leave” and took three days
in contesting with “Application for Leave”. They asked for three days cross-
examinations and filed four Respondents’ Records containing five transcripts and
other materials. They are claiming $22,438.76 for Application: the total is
$31,967.44.
MOVING PARTIES’ MOTION RECORD TAB 16 Bill of Costs p. 144-48
RESPONDING PARTY’S MOTION RECORD Court’s Scheduled Hearing Two
Hours p.
8. On June 28, 2004, the Applicant complained of water damage to
his kitchen to the Respondent Belford and asked for prompt repair. Belford
replied: “We do not believe to be evident at this time.” On July 29, 2004, the
Applicant sent a notice to the Respondents that if they do not obey the
management contract within seven days, he would move before the court. Soon
the Applicant hired a Home Inspector who reported Safety Hazard due to over
one square meter toxic mould over drywall ceiling. Also an Architect reported of
cracks in the Structural slab above the ceiling, in which the Respondents
were/are liable.
MOVING PARTIES’ MOTION RECORD, TAB 4- Affidavit of Major Keyvan
Nourhaghighi
p. 31, para 18: Home Inspector: “Safety Hazard”, “Toxic Mould” Exhibit “H2”
Respondent Belford’s Letter referred to; p. 43, para. 50-L. 5-8;
TAB 5-Suppelemenatry Affidavit of Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi, Water Damage
on February 15, 2005 Exhibit I inflamed wet paper p. 46, para 2
RESPONDING PARTY’S MOTION RECORD: Endorsement of Madam Justice
Boland, p. 2

5. L13-16 He complained water consistently seeping into kitchen from common…
Endorsement of Court of Appeal for Ontario, p. 4, last line: Repairs for which…
4
LETTER from Respondent Belford to Applicant Nourhaghighi. p.6
Delta Home Insp. Leakage/ Mold must repair immediately, Safety Hazard p. 23
AFFIDAVIT of Nima Nourhaghighi …periodic leaking from ceiling p.7, para 6
AFFIDAVIT of Mohammed Khatibi “Toxic Mould Attacks” p.15, para 4, line 6-12
Exhibit “A” Photograph-Damaged ceiling June 28, 2004-p.16
Exhibit “B” four Photographs- Toxic Mould inside Drywall-p.17
Exhibit “H” in Application Record: six photographs of damaged Concrete ceiling,
hanging insulation-p. 18 Moulds collected by Applicant on 03SEPT04 p. 19
Photograph by T. Harris Environmental “Obvious Mould” p. 20;
Suden+Kanera Architects Inc. Letter-Dec 22/04:”Numerous hairline cracks in
Structural slab above in around the areas of moisture penetration …” p. 21:para
5
9. On August 6, 2004, the Applicant served the Notice of Application.
On September 14, 2004, Counsel Deacon wrote a letter to the Applicant that he
would not accept any service of the Application’s material, as it was “improper
process”.
“[…] Court ordered that ‘no further proceeding be instituted by the
Respondent, Keyvan Nourhaghighi, in any court;’ We do not have
instruction to accept service of any of your applications material on behalf
of any of the named respondents and we do not intend to ask for those
instructions because your application is an improper process… motion
October 19,0 4…to strike out your application…with costs on substantial
indemnity basis”.
However, on October 13, 2004 Counsel Deacon sworn Affidavit for an extension of
time
did not admit to service of Notice of Application, did not disclose the filing date of
Notice
of Appearance to be entitle to receive the Application’s material. Deacon made Oath
contrary to his letter that would not accept the service from the Applicant. The

6. records
indicating Deacon intentionally did not admit service; but Applicant filed Affidavit of
Service.
1…I act as corporate counsel for the corporation…4. As solicitor for the
corporation we were instructed to enter Appearances for the respondents
Caber and John Belford… 8. The corporation has not been served with
any prior Application material…October 22, 2004…has not received any
affidavit material in support of Application to date…my firm… act for
corp….2002”.
RESPONDING PARTY’S MOTION RECORD Deacon’s Letter 14 SEPT04
p.8:Last para
NOTICE of Appearance for Belford dated 12OCT04 p. 23
AFFIDAVIT Deacon, p.25:4 “When?”; p. 26 Retain2002; p. 27:9
“Improperly”
5
10. Counsel Deacon on his letter and Affidavit referred to the
Applicant’s Application as “improper process”. Deacon in his letter emphasized
that on “October 19, 2004, three days before hearing of the Application would
ask strike out”. The Respondents’ Factum in paragraph 7:3,4 submitted: “…
made an order striking out paragraphs 1(a), 1(b), and 1(c) of Nourhaghighi’s
Notice of Application pursuant to Rule 25.11(c) on the basis the Notice of
Application, as drafted violated…” contrary to Rule 2.02 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure;
Rule 2.02: A motion to attack a proceeding or a step, document or order
in a
proceeding for irregularity shall not be made, except with a Leave of the
Court
RESPONDING PARTY’S MOTION RECORD Deacon’s Letter 14 SEPT04 p.8,
p.9:para 2:
AFFIDAVIT Deacon p. 27:9
“Improperly”

7. 11. Further Counsels Deacon and Fedson relied on Rule 2.01(1), and
2.03 on their Notice of Motion:
Rule 2.01: A failure to comply with these rules is an irregularity and does not
render a
proceeding or a step, document or order in a proceeding a nullity,
However, Counsel Deacon asked from the Applicant to file Notice of
Abandonment, or would proceed with a motion to strike out the Application and
would seek costs payable by the Applicant on substantial indemnity basis, when
he knew an irregularity does not render the Applicant’s Application a nullity.
MOVING PARTIES’ MOTION RECORD TAB 6 Respondents Notice of Motion p.
58: para 4
12. Counsels Deacon, Fedson, and Djurdjevac, have given too much
weight to a ‘leave’ that the Applicant was obligated to obtain, though did not
disclose their own obligation in law to obtain a ‘leave’ in attacking to a lawful
Application.
6
13. The Respondent’s Factum at paragraphs 8, 9 containing
destructive facts upon the following proofs. From July 2004 to October 2004, the
Applicant granted numerous accesses to the Respondents for repair. On October
5, 2004 again the Applicant has given eight days access to his unit for toxic
mould cleaning by professional, as Deacon promised to perform. Therefore, the
Respondents’ allegations that they obtained Justice Ducharme Order are
incorrect. The said Order made in accordance to both parties’ requests. The

8. Order clearly stated that, the Applicant would consent to such Order.
RESPONDING PARTY’S MOTION RECORD Nourhaghighi’ Letter 05OCT04
p.31
Letter from Apple Mechanical to Fedson, p.30, para 3 first and last
lines
MOVING PARTIES’ MOTION RECORD TAB 8 Ducharme J Endorsement p.90,
para 12:8
14. On October 13, 2004, the same day that Deacon sworn his
Affidavit, two plumbers “Apple Mechanical” attended for inspection to the
Applicant’s unit instate of mould specialist. On October 19, 2004, the Applicant
saw that the Respondents delivered the letter of Apple Mechanical to Counsel
Fedson at the courtroom. The said letter was dated same day of “October 19,
2004” addressing “Fedson” instead to address the Property Manager. Fedson,
privately, delivered the said letter to Justice Ducharme and raised his anger
toward the Applicant and encouraged the judge to strike out the Application as
Apple Mechanical declared no mould found in his unit contrary to the Home
Inspector’s report.
Further, the Apple Mechanical’s report disclosed in Affidavit of the Property
Manager
Respondent Blair is contrary to Justice Pitt’s Order who ordered the
Respondents to
RESPONDING PARTY’S MOTION RECORD Delta Home Inspection’s Report
p. 13
Letter from Apple Mechanical to Fedson, p.30, para 3 first and last
lines
MOVING PARTIES’ MOTION RECORD TAB 14 Pitt J Endorsement p.138, para
11:1
TAB 11AFFIDAVIT of Property Manager Blair, p.116,para 27:4 No

9. Mould
7
15. Further the Property Manager Respondent Blair refused to clean
the mould and repair the ceiling. She relied in an article at the Toronto Star that it
is the Applicant’s duty for the repairs of his unit. The Applicant presented
contractual evidence. He also present ample false “Notice of Arrears” made by
the Respondents for repair his unit in which the Corporation had responsibility.
Justice Pitt made Order against the Respondents to clean the mould and repair
the ceiling with no costs to the Applicant.
MOVING PARTIES’ MOTION RECORD TAB 14 Pitt J Endorsement p.138, para
11:4
16. On October 19, 2004, Counsel Fedson asked for the adjournment
of hearing scheduled for October 22, 2004; he relied on Rule 3.02.
Page 6:17:Fedson:[…] We’re left with not having filed material perhaps and going before a judge
…
……….
Page15:last 3 lines: Ducharme J : Wouldn’t the judge hearing the application be in a better
position at least to determine the issue ..
Further Justice Ducharme repeated that the presiding judge on Friday October
22, 2004 is in better position to hear their motion. Counsel disregarded the
judge’s ruling.
Shockingly, without any Factum or proof, Council Fedson arbitrary commenced
attack to the Application, and falsely emphasized that the Application has been
brought under Section 140. (4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act :
Ducharme J: And Why is it contrary to the Courts of Justice Act?
Fedson: Section 140, I have a copy with me provides that if you ask for relief you cannot

10. ask, sorry you if you ask for leave to bring a proceeding you cannot ask for any
other relief in that application which is exactly what the applicant has done in this
case. Section 140 (4)(B) it says that the applicant may not seek any other relief
on the application.
Nourhaghighi: OBJECTION!
Ducharme J.: You don’t make objections here sir. […]
RESPONDING PARTY’S MOTION RECORD, Excerpts of Transcript October 19,
2004,
p.32:17-32; p.33:7-19; p.15:27-32
17. In spite of the Counsel Fedson’s misleading argument, Mr. Justice
Ducharme confirmed that the Applicant’s Application Record and Factum were
filed on time.
P. 8: L7 Ducharme J. Okay, so he’s [Applicant] within time?
Fedson He’s within time on that.
Ducharme J. So, he’s within time for everything is he not? He hasn’t missed a
deadline in terms of FRIDAY application?
P. 9: L23 Fedson We won’t be in position though Your Honour to respond properly
with material tomorrow.
Ducharme J. Oh but that’s really something for you to explain to the judge
hearing
the application than to me. I mean I have not seen that material.
He served it within time.
Transcript of October 19, 2004 pp. 8, and 9
By the word “tomorrow”, Counsel Fedson was referring to October 20, 2004.
However, the last day that the Respondents could file record was October 15th
not October 20th. Therefore, counsel’s statement was incorrect; he was not being
frankly with the court.
RESPONDING PARTY MOTION RECORD Transcript-October 19, 2004; pp.58,
59
18. Mr. Justice Ducharme told Council Fedson repeatedly that he
should take his motion on October 22, 2004. However, the council persisted on
his motion being heard on the same day instead. Shockingly, without any

11. Factum or proof, Council Fedson arbitrary commenced attack to the Application,
and falsely emphasized that the Application has been brought under Section 140.
(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act :
Ducharme J: And Why is it contrary to the Courts of Justice Act?
Fedson: Section 140, I have a copy with me provides that if you ask for relief you cannot
ask, sorry you if you ask for leave to bring a proceeding you cannot ask for any
other relief in that application which is exactly what the applicant has done in this
case. Section 140 (4)(B) it says that the applicant may not seek any other relief
on the application.
Nourhaghighi: OBJECTION!
Ducharme J.: You don’t make objections here sir. […]
Transcript of October 19, 2004 Page 10, L7-17:
The Applicant was surprised, because his application was not under section 140.
(4)(b):
140. (4)(b) the person making the application for leave may seek the recission of the
order
made under subsection (1) but may not seek any other relief on the application.
The Notice of Application is prima facie evidence that the recission of the Order
made by Mr. Justice Wilkins was not a relief contrary to the emphasize of
Counsel Fedson.
After more than four hours arguments in the Respondents’ irregular motion,
finally the Applicant was successful to satisfy Mr. Justice Ducharme to endorse in
his judgment that the Applicant has strenuously argued that only Section140.(4)
(a) applies to him contrary to the Respondents’ Notice of Motion and the Counsel
Fedson’s arguments.
MOVING PARTIES’ MOTION RECORD TAB 3 Notice of Application p. 15-para
1(a)-(e)
TAB 6 Notice of Motion p. 58-last line para (4)
“Sub-section 140.(4)(b)- Courts of Justice Act
TAB 7 Transcript of October 19, 2004, p. 62:30
p. 63: 5 NOT correct; p.63.25-32 judge erred in
law; p. 65:15: judge erred in law; p. 67.3-11
Additional errors in transcript: October 22 is

12. correct there are more errors; p.70:26; p. 71,
p.72:15;
TAB 8 Ducharme J. Endorsement p. 89-para 8
RESPONDING PARTY MOTION RECORD Transcript-October 19, 2004; p.
60:7-17
Page 18, L 6-11 Ducharme J. […] I think that it’s even more so appropriate otherwise
we’re going
to put to more cost and expense and rushing to have
something
ready for the judge on FRIDAY hopefully having it ADJOURNED
at waste of time and money on FRIDAY
Page 22, L7 Nourhaghighi: […] From August 5th, it has been set for October 22nd.
Page 24, L15 Fedson: …I was just served…
Ducharme J: Well, sorry you have lost me there. …he filed without serving
it?
19. First line in paragraph 9 should be corrected to read: ”Justice
Ducharme obtained the Applicant’s consent for making the interim order sought
by the parties” On February 15, 1996, the Respondents asked from Justice
Boland for access to the Applicant’s unit to perform constructions. The Applicant
submitted that they were abusing the right of entry to harm him. The learned
judge dismissed their application with cost to be paid forthwith, yet the
Respondents owe the costs. On July 15, 1998, this Court heard the
Respondents’ appeal and after obtaining the Applicant’s consent made Order
that the Respondents must provide accommodation to him before repairs. The
Respondents did not comply with order.
MOVING PARTIES’ MOTION RECORD TAB 3 Notice of Application p. 15-para
1(a)-(e)
RESPONDING PARTY MOTION RECORD Transcript-October 19, 2004; p.

13. 60:7-17
20. The Respondents’ Factum in paragraph 11 omitted the productive
facts, and contains error of law. It should be corrected to read that: On October
22, 2004, again the “Application” strangely scheduled before same “motion
judge” Ducharme J. Counsel asked for 30 days adjournment to be able to serve
and file the Respondents’ Records. The Applicant opposed and submitted that
would be prejudiced by delay as his family health and safety due to toxic mould
in his unit. Justice Ducharme arbitrary adjourned the Application to February 23,
2005 and made Order for a one-day hearing. Justice Ducharme confirmed that in
person contacted with office and obtained a one-day hearing. However, on
February 23, 2005, the court schedule two hours for hearing, as originally
scheduled.
PART II
POINTS IN THE ISSUE
21. It is respectfully submitted that the solo issue before this Honourable Court:
A. Whether the Respondents raised a concrete question justifying there is a need to
ration scarce judicial resources for the hearing of an appeal for Costs?
The following are the samples of the points in the issue:
(1) Who is liable for the costs of the Respondents’ Motions for three adjournments?
(2) Whether the Respondents comply with four Orders made against them by the
Court of Appeal for Ontario, Madam Justice Boland, and Mrs. Justices Pitt and
Ducharme? Where are the proofs of complying; or what are the proper and clear
explanations for not complying with Orders? Whether the Respondents’ Solicitors have
given a proper legal advise to the Respondents, and as the officer of the court respected
the Orders and were frankly with judges?

14. (3) Whether the Respondents’ Solicitors Motion three days before Application
hearing is justifiable under the law in wasting the judiciary resources? Where are the
proofs that the Respondents were on time in filing their material for the application
hearing of October 22, 2004, such as the “Notice of Appearance”, the “Respondents’
Application Record”, the “Respondents’ Factum”, and the Respondents’ Case Book?
Where are the proofs that the Respondents were on time in filing their material for
motion hearing of October 19, and 22, 2004, such as the “Moving Parties’ FACTUM”,
and “Moving Parties Case Book”, the “Moving Parties’ Motion Record|”, and a proper
Affidavit that directly addresses the important issues like ‘Stay of a legal proceeding’,
‘Adjournment of an scheduled hearing’ ?
(4) Whether the Respondents’ Solicitors acted professionally, in representing the
Respondents, and as the officer of the court?
PART III
ARGUMENT
A. Whether the Respondents rose a concrete question justifying there is a need to
ration scarce judicial resources for the hearing of an appeal for Costs?
22. It is respectfully submitted that the answer is the negative. Mr. Justice Pitt
exercised his judicial discretion judicially and judiciously on the basis that the Costs
Order was made. It was not made inter alia, on wrong principles, on a misapprehension
of significant facts or in a non-judicial manner. B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of
Metropolitan Toronto
23. The Respondents’ Motion brought three days before the hearing of the
Application contrary to Section 138 of the Courts of Justice Act, and Rules 1.04, 38.10
(1)(a) of the Rules Civil Procedure, which is an abuse of process in nature:
Section 138: As far as possible, multiplicity of legal proceedings shall be avoided.
Rule 1.04 (1) These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most
expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding
on its merits.
Rule 38.10 (1) On the hearing of an application the presiding judge may,
(a) grant the relief sought or dismiss or adjourn the application, in whole
or in part with or without terms;

15. 24. The doctrine of abuse of process is somewhat similar to the doctrine of res
judicata in that it also seeks to prevent a multiplicity of proceedings. There is not a good
reason for Respondents’ Motion on October 19, 2004. Reddy v. Oshawa Flying Club
25. Further, the Respondents relied on Rule 2.01(1) of the Rules Civil Procedure,
where Rule 2.02 requires leave of the court in which they failed to obtain it. The proper
way to contest the Applicant’s Application was to appear and argue at the hearing of the
Application itself, on October 22, 2004. David Bull Laboratories v. Pharmacia Inc
26. The Respondents’ Notice of Motion was asking for three adjournments: (a) to file
“Moving Parties Motion Material”; (b) to file “ Respondents’ Application Record, Factum”;
(c) to cross-examine five witnesses and relied on Rule 3.02(1)-(2). The Respondents
had seventy days to file their “Moving parties Motion Material” :
Rule 3.02 (1) Subject to subrule (3), the court may by order extend or abridge any time
prescribed by these rules or an order, on such terms as are just.
(7) A motion for an order extending time may be made before or after the
expiration of time prescribed.
27. The Respondents knew or ought to have been known that the costs of a motion
for an extension of time shall be borne by the party bringing the motion 1. The irregular
motions have resulted in the needless expense to the Applicant of preparing and arguing
‘two days’ in reply; while application was sat for ‘two hours’ to be heard on its merits.
It is submitted that in the circumstance, it was appropriate and just that the Respondents
pay to the Applicant the costs of motions incurred subsequent to the disposition of the
motion to adjourn which was made on October 19, and 22, 2004. Borowski v. Canada
28. Further, the Respondents’ two Motions for adjournment of a prima facie evidence

16. heath hazard issue caused a serious prejudice for the Applicant, when they failed to file
their application’s material at the expiry of the limitation period. Aliferis v. Parfeniuk
29. Furthermore, Rule 38.07 (1) instructed that the Respondents should file a Notice
of Appearance forthwith to be entitled to receive any further document in the Application:
Rule 38.07 (1) A respondent who has been served with a notice of application
shall forthwith deliver a notice of appearance (Form 38A)
(2) A respondent who has not delivered a notice of appearance is not entitled to,
(a) receive notice of any step in the application;
(b) receive any further document in the Application, unless
Superscripts
1
Rule 410.(2) of the Federal Court Rules, 1998
30. Solicitor Deacon’s Affidavit withholding information that he wrote to the Applicant
that does not have instruction to accept service of Application Record, and would not
ask for such instruction as he misunderstood and misinterpreted that the Application
was improper process by mistake in law-s.140. (4)(b). Therefore the did not had bona
fide intention to oppose the Application by not filing the Notice of Appearance forthwith.
Can. Wool Co. v. Brampton Knitting Mills; R. v. Toronto Magistrates and Faurnier.
39. It is submitted that the further tests for the determination of whether the
discretion exercised judicially and judiciously on the basis that the Costs Order was
made is to review the Notice of Application, Application Record, and the transcript of
proceeding before Mr. Justice Pitt. The learned judge heard the Applicant that the
Respondents were in Contempt Orders of the Ontario Court of Appeal 2, Madam Justice
Boland, and given the oral directions for Contempt Orders as requested in the Notice of
Application. Solicitor Deacon’s letter is ignoring to comply with the Order of this
Honourable Court 2.

17. 40. Further, Mr. Justice Pitt heard the Applicant’s submissions that nevertheless the
Respondents are in default of the payment of the Costs Order made by Madam Justice
Boland against the Respondents to be paid forthwith on March 27,1996, which is
vexatious conduct in nature.
41. Furthermore, it was in paragraph 1 of the Applicant’s Submissions for Costs
before Mr. Justice Pitt that the Respondents have disobeyed his honour Order for repair,
and they are yet did not comply with the part of order expressed as “other work”.
Superscripts
2
The Order of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, made on July 29, 1998, file no. C24450
5
42.
32. It is submitted that the most expeditious and least expensive determination of the
Applicant’s Application, to secure the just, was if the presiding judge on October 22,
2004 was getting opportunity to hear it on its merits.
40. The Applicant requests the Respondents’ motion for leave to file a notice of
appeal be dismissed with costs, in any event of the cause.
ALL OF WHICH RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
Dated in the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario This November 3rd, 2005
MAJOR KEYVAN NOURHAGHIGHI
608-456 College Street
Toronto, Ontario
M6G 4A3

18. Mr. Justice Pitt exercised discretion in utmost level of fairness toward the Respondents
by prejudicing the Applicant excessive costs caused by the Respondents’ motions,
cross-examinations, and over months delays in hearing of his urgent Application.
SCHEDULE A
LIST OF AUTHORITIES REFERRED TO
Paragraph Referred to
Aliferis v. Parfeniuk (1985), 1 C.P.C. (2d) 41, 9 O.A.C. 215 (C.A.)
B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto [1995] 1 S.C.R., 315 ??
Can. Wool Co. v. Brampton Knitting Mills, [1954] O.W.N. 867 (C.A.)
David Bull Laboratories v. Pharmacia Inc. [1995] 1.F.C., 588 ??
Reddy v. Oshawa Flying Club(1992), 11 C.P.C. (3d) 154 (Ont. Gen. Div.)