BETWEEN

Court File No. LS 025/13

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

(Estates List)

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, andHEYDARY 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. I3ADBAVNYSworn 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

Applicant, the Law Society of Upper Canada ("the La~v Society"). I am employed by the

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

-2-

BACKGROUND

2. The Respondent, Javad Heydary ("Heydary") is a lawyer who was called to the Bar in

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:

LJ

-3-

• Heydary Hamilton Professional Corporation ("Heydary Hamilton") received $3.6

million in settlement funds in trust for the Abuzours in April 2013 (the "Abuzour

Funds");

• 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;

• 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.

-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 ofNovember, 2013.---,

A Commissioner, etc. Lawrence Ha avny

~6