heafey group-samir chowieri forced to repay millions by quebec court for fraud

7/16/2019 Heafey Group-Samir Chowieri forced to repay millions by Quebec Court for fraud.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/heafey-group-samir-chowieri-forced-to-repay-millions-by-quebec-court-for-fraud 1/28

C A N A D A C O U R S U P E R U I E R EPROVINCE OF QUEBEC (Civil)DISTRICT OF HULL

No: 550-17-004207-088

NADER A. DORMAN-And-MEHDI (MICHAEL) RAZI-And-PARSCOM ENTERPRISES INC.

Applicantsc.

RHÉAL DALLAIRE

-And-Pierre Heafey-And-SAMIR CHOWIERI-And-6963251 CANADA INC., A legally constituted corporation with its headquarters at 101-1885 St Louis, Gatineau, Quebec, district of Hull, J8T 6G4-And-Noubar Boyadjian, trustee, exercising his profession in Litwin Boyadjian Inc., Located at602-1411 Peel Street, Montreal, Quebec, District of Montreal, H3A 1S5-And-

Litwin Boyadjian Inc., A legally constituted corporation with its headquarters at 602-1411Peel Street, Montreal, Quebec, District of Montreal, H3A 1S5,

Defendants ________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

MOTION TO INSTITUTE PROCEEDINGSAMENDED IN DAMAGES(Art. 110 et seq. C.p.c.)

I PARTIES

1. March 14, 2008, the defendant, Rheal Dallaire, signed a partnership agreement withthe applicants having regard to safeguarding the company's financial Resort managedby Investment International ULC (the "Resort") or the Chateau Cartier , as appears fromthe agreement to the parties by leaving a copy at the meaning hereof and filed as anexhibit P-1;



2

2. The defendant Rheal Dallaire and his wife Josée Quirion, were the sole directorsreported Resort until May 21, 2008. Since then, the defendant Rheal Dallaire is the soledirector of Resort, all as appears from the state information on the register ResortRegistrar of companies and the amending declaration filed May 21, 2008 and theRegister of Joint Stock Companies in Nova Scotia, communicated to the parties by

leaving a copy at the significance of present and produced in a bundle as exhibit P-2;3. In addition, Resort is in bankruptcy since June 27, 2008, when the defendant RhealDallaire has made a voluntary assignment of assets Resort, under Article 49 of theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act;

4. 6918824 Canada Inc.. Signatory to the agreement Exhibit P-1, is a legal companysince February 7, 2008, under the Canada Business Corporations Act, whose soledirector was Ms Josée Quirion, joint Rheal Dallaire defendant until recently. Since thedefendant Rheal Dallaire is the sole director of 6918824 Canada Inc.., All as appears inthe register of the Registrar of companies and computer Strategis statement to the

parties by leaving a copy at the significance of these and as Exhibit P-3;5. 6918824 Canada Inc.. is 100% shareholder of Resort;

6. Dallaire Family Trust / Quirion, also signed the agreement Exhibit P-1, is 100%shareholder of 6918824 Canada Inc..;

7. As for Dallaire Family Trust / Quirion, Josée Gingras André Quirion and were the soledirectors until June 3, 2008. Since then, it is Josée Quirion and Rheal Dallaire who arethe sole directors, all as appears from the state information on the Trust of the family-Dallaire Quirion the Register of Registrar of companies and reporting Amendment filedJune 3, 2008, communicated to the parties by leaving a copy at the significance ofpresent and produced in a bundle as exhibit P-4;

8. For purposes of clarity, the corporate structure was as follows at March 14, 2008:

9. To provide for the transfer of management of the company Château Cartier, it wasagreed that the assets of Resort would be transferred to another management companyin which the applicant Mehdi (Michael) Razi and ultimately the defendant would becomeRheal Dallaire Directors and whose shareholders are the three partners personally orthrough management companies, at a rate of 51% for both applicants and 49% for thedefendant Rheal Dallaire;

10. Thus, according to what had been agreed between the parties, the plaintiff companyParscom Enterprises inc. (Hereinafter: "Parscom"), incorporated November 12, 2002under the Canada Business Corporations Act by the applicant Mehdi (Michael) Raziwas chosen as the vehicle allowing them to set up an association project , all asappears from the state information on the register Parscom the Registrar of companies,to the parties as Exhibit P-5 by leaving a copy at the significance of these;



3

11. Pursuant to the above, the corporate structure, following the transfer ofmanagement of the company Parscom was, by agreement between the partners asfollows:

12. As for the defendants and Samir Chowieri Pierre Heafey, they are both known

businessmen in the Outaouais region and also directors of the company 6152988Canada Inc.., (...) Through which they acted to to defraud the plaintiffs of their rights,including the acquisition of certain legal mortgages of construction;

13. Pierre Heafey the defendant is also a notary training;

14. For its part, the defendant 6963251 Canada Inc.. was the legal vehicle by which thedefendants Chowieri Heafey and tried, as early as May 2008, to acquire the assets ofResort, and that will eventually vest in December 2008;

15. To facilitate the understanding of the following and simplify the text, the undersigned

designate the defendants collectively 6963251 Canada Inc.., Pierre Heafey and SamirChowieri as "the Heafey Group" is the designation used by Justice in Riordan herendered judgments in the case of bankruptcy Resort (500-11-033664-083subsequently transferred to the folder 550-11-011642-098), respectively, provided asExhibit P-24a) ( Judgement of 5 December 2008), Exhibit P-24b) (Judgement ofDecember 10, 2008 and Exhibit P-24c) (Judgement of 17 March 2009);

16. In regard to the defendant Noubar Boyadjian, he acted as trustee in the bankruptcyof Resort;

17. For its part, the defendant Litwin Boyadjian Inc. is the office of trustee in which Mr.Boyadjian Noubar practiced his profession at the relevant time the subject of thisdispute;

II BASIS OF THIS APPEAL

18. The plaintiffs argue that the defendant Rheal Dallaire has violated the agreement of14 March 2008 and that the defendants conspired with Pierre Heafey, Samir and thedefendant Chowieri 6963251 Canada Inc.. to get out of this agreement which bound himto applicants;

19. Moreover, it appears that the defendant Noubar Boyadjian was actively involved inthis conspiracy, that applicants have gradually learned that from the fall of 2008,following the various decisions and actions of the latter;

20. By their actions, the defendants caused damage to plaintiffs for which they seekcompensation in accordance with the conclusions found herein;

III INITIAL JUDGEMENT OF THE HONOURABLE RIORDAN

21. As appears from the decision of December 5, 2008 the Honourable Brian Riordan,



4

JSC, Exhibit P-24a), to argue for the purposes hereof as if recited here in full, it seemsclear (see paragraph 12 of decision) Dallaire that the defendant unilaterally decided tostop complying with the agreement Exhibit P-1;

22. Indeed, the Honorable Judge Riordan acknowledges, in paragraph 13 of its

decision, that in the weeks following the signing of Exhibit P-1, Dallaire, Heafey andChowieri have explored avenues to get rid of the applicants and to acquire the assets ofthe hotel;

23. Accordingly, many agreements are reached between Dallaire and Heafey Groupbetween March 14, 2008 and the date of the bankruptcy Resort, including an agreementdated May 2, 2008, copy of which is provided as Exhibit P-25, by which Heafey Grouptabled an offer to purchase the assets of Resort;

24. The Honorable Judge Riordan is also particular attention to the sale of receivablesagreement dated August 11, 2008 between Dallaire and Heafey Group, agreements

already provided as Exhibit P-16, while mentioning that the evidence revealed that theterms this agreement, or similar, had been agreed between the parties before thebankruptcy of Resort;

25. For Judge Riordan, it is clear that at the end of March 2008, Dallaire was negotiatingwith the Heafey Group to dispose of the agreement with the plaintiffs, Exhibit P-1;

26. The Honorable Judge Riordan doubts at various times in his trial, Dallaire'scredibility, including in paragraph 33 of that decision which outlines the reasons thatwould justify its conflict with the applicants;

27. The credibility of the testimony of the defendant Chowieri was also questioned bythe judge Riordan when it vehemently denied the existence of a partnership betweenGroupe Heafey and Dallaire before the bankruptcy (see paragraphs 31 and 35Judgement);

28. Judge Riordan grant no more credibility to the testimony of the defendant Heafey,especially given the contradictions in his testimony, as appears from paragraph 34 ofthe trial;

29. Moreover, for the Court, all these contradictions surrounding the testimony ofdefendants Chowieri, Dallaire Heafey and contribute greatly to the demonstration thatthese three individuals had decided to Resort bankrupt to get rid of the agreementbetween the plaintiffs to the defendant Dallaire;

30. For Judge Riordan, the truth is found in the conversation that Mr. Dallaire had withPeter Wilk, July 7, 2008, all as appears from paragraph 51 of the trial; copy of thetranscript of that conversation is already reported as Exhibit P-17;

31. Moreover, again in paragraph 46 of decision, Judge Riordan wrote:



5

"The Court Rather Comes to the conclusion That, HAVING failed to overturn theJudgement in the Bédard Court of Appeal, Dallaire Realized That His only hope forgetting the Heafey Group Into the driver's seat WAS Through the Bankruptcy Act. "

32. Given the agreement between the Group and Heafey Dallaire about the assignment

of the receivables of the latter, Exhibit P-16, Groupe Heafey saw himself thus giving aveto over any proposal or vote in the bankruptcy (see paragraph 48 of Judgement);

33. The Honorable Judge Riordan concluded that this strategy of using bankruptcy toavoid the agreement of March, Exhibit P-1, was probably thinking and recommended bythe defendants and Chowieri Heafey, two players of experience in this area, all asappears from paragraph 50 of the trial;

34. In conclusion, the Honorable Judge Riordan said, in paragraph 51 of its Judgement,the following:

"We find Dallaire That Used the law in bad faith and improper purpose for a year, ie,valid legal obligations to Avoid with the ultimate goal of Advancing personal history overInterests of Those Either the company, of Which He Was a director, or of STIsCreditors. "

35. Specifically, the Honorable Judge Riordan states at paragraph 53 of its Judgement:

"The present case IS Clearly one Where the bankruptcy process has-been abused inorder to AVOID compliance with contractual obligations of a director. This abuse Is Allthe more objectionable in light of the Fact That, Had Been RespectED Thoseobligations, this Likely Would Have Rendered the company viable and profitablePerhaps, saving jobs and satisfying Creditors' claims. It Is in the public interest tosanction Such Behaviour. "

36. It is in this context that the Honorable Judge Riordan ordered a bidding process topurchase the assets of Resort between the two parts, one part of the plaintiffs and'autrehand, Heafey Group, as appears more fully on pages 13 and following the decision ofDecember 5, 2008, Exhibit 24a);

IV PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSPIRACY Heafey Group

37. The defendants Pierre Heafey and Samir Chowieri were therefore associated withthe defendant Rheal Dallaire to take over the assets of Resort and force the withdrawalof the project applicants Association of March 14, 2008;

38. In addition, the defendants Pierre Heafey and Samir Chowieri knew about theagreement of March 14, 2008, Exhibit P-1, since the beginning of their association withthe defendant Rheal Dallaire;

39. Moreover, when one of his first conversations with Samir Chowieri, Dormani theapplicant was advised that it had signed an agreement with Rheal Dallaire;



6

40. The defendants Rheal Dallaire, Pierre Heafey and Samir Chowieri have the audacityto make a fraudulent bankruptcy Resort with the help and the intervention of the trusteeNoubar Boyadjian and this, for the sole purpose to thwart the decision ( ...) interlocutoryMay 13, 2008 made by the Honourable Martin Bédard, JCS, the District of Hull in the file

550-17-003809-082 (...) copy of the decision being communicated as Exhibit P-26;41. The trial of Ginsberg Gingras named Chantal Gingras as interim receiver of theassets of Resort, in accordance with the powers were granted by Judge Bédard;

42. The decision of Judge Bédard was confirmed by the Honourable Louise Otis, JCA,which dismissed an application for leave to appeal by the defendant Dallaire, June 13,2008, on file 500-09-018682-088; copy this decision is communicated as Exhibit P-27;

43. The Honourable Justice Otis stated in paragraph 9 of the trial, the following:

"A measure of the provisional nature of sequestration is exceptional, short-term andshould be used to prevent a situation rendering the final verdict ineffective. As the caseis almost ready and completed the interviews, it seems important, in the particularcontext of this case, the permanent injunction is heard primarily in reality in the comingweeks. "

44. But rather than proceed with the hearing of this permanent injunction, the defendantDallaire, assisted by the Group and the trustee Boyadjan Heafey, conducted in the daysfollowing the decision of the Honorable Judge Otis, a sale of assets Resort, under theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act;

45. Obviously, the plan of the defendants Dallaire, Heafey and Chowieri was to makebankruptcy Resort and then buy its assets;

46. In short, at all relevant times, defendants Dallaire, (...) The Heafey Group and thetrustee Boyadjian have plotted together to exclude applicants of the agreement P-1;

V SUMMARY OF EVENTS LEADING TO THE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT P-1

47. The plaintiffs had been approached by the defendant Rheal Dallaire and his friend,André Gingras, during the month of February 2008, to invest the sums necessary for thefinancial recovery Resort, said company is facing heavy financial problems that time;

48. The Toronto-Dominion Bank then held three mortgages on the assets of Resort: amortgage in the amount of 6.1 million, a chattel mortgage in the amount of $ 6.1 millionand a mortgage collateral, all as appears from paragraph 3) the agreement of March 14,2008, Exhibit P-1;

49. In mid-February 2008, applicants were informed by Rheal Dallaire and AndréGingras that the bank would exercise his hypothecary and they would lose the ChateauCartier if they could not pay the sum of $ 5 million;



7

50. Rheal Dallaire The defendant has offered to applicants to hand over $ 1 million profitin the coming months if they agreed to lend him the necessary $ 5 million;

51. The plaintiffs had no interest in being mere lenders and have indicated their

intention to operate the business and become shareholders of 51% of it;52. Rheal Dallaire The defendant accepted the proposal, which led to the conclusion ofthe agreement of March 14, 2008, Exhibit P-1;

53. It was very clear to all parties, from the very beginning of the project, it was not justa funding from applicants but a partnership to 51% for applicants and 49% fordefendants signed the agreement, which has been recognized by the judge as the

judge Bédard Riordan;

54. In addition, at the same time, some time before the signing of the agreement of

March 14, 2008, the defendant had mentioned Rheal Dallaire claimants have contactedSDI (Investments Quebec) and that it was prepared to accept a reduction of at least30% of debt capital;

55. In the days following the payment to the Toronto-Dominion Bank, a non-refundabledeposit of $ 1 million, legal mortgages for more than 3 million were issued by variouscontractors on the Resort property, all as appears in the index to buildings to the partiesby leaving a copy at the significance of these and produced in support hereof as ExhibitP-6;

56. (...) Given a tentative agreement between the parties prior to March 14, 2008, theplaintiffs had consented, dated February 27, 2008, to make such a filing with theToronto-Dominion Bank and, in order to push maturities of the mortgagee, all asappears from the payment agreement and supporting documents available to theparties by leaving a copy at the significance of present and produced in support hereofas Exhibit P-bundle 7;

57. Subsequently, the plaintiffs purchased the debt from the Toronto-Dominion Bank for$ 4980 $ 930.99, as appears from the receipt subrogated to the parties by leaving acopy at the significance hereof and filed as an exhibit to support P-8;

58. At the same time, the plaintiffs paid to Resort, at the request of Dallaire, (...) anamount of 264 $ 551.79 or $ 580.87 102 representatives from 51% of applicants for newfurniture in the fifth floor of the Château Cartier $ 970.92 and 161 representative fromthe fifth floor of the defendant Rheal Dallaire (49%) what it was for new furniture on thesixth floor, including taxes, as appears from a copy of the agreement of March 28, 2008and proof of payment available to the parties at the meaning of this and produced theirsupport in a bundle as exhibit P-9;

59. That $ 264 $ 551.79 was paid by 3463192 Canada Inc.. As Resort had requestedthe money urgently and Parscom could not, at that time, make such payment;



8

60. 3463192 Canada Inc.., Which is controlled by Nader Dorman, then agreed toforward the said sum and acquired Parscom;

61. Since this payment, Parscom acknowledged that it is a loan of 3463192 Canada

Inc.. In his favor;VI first attempt Heafey Group TAKE CONTROL OF ACTIVE RESORT

62. Following the publication of legal mortgages above mentioned, applicants havefound that when the defendant Rheal Dallaire, through another of his companies,namely Development Château Cartier, had engaged the services of GMR Constructionsfor the sum more than 2.7 million dollars to renovate the Château Cartier, as it appearsthat the management contract to the parties by leaving a copy at the significance ofthese and produced in support hereof as Exhibit P- 10;

63. Given the non-refundable deposit of $ 1 million to the Toronto-Dominion Bank andrepresentations of the defendant Rheal Dallaire to the effect that GMR Constructionsand all subcontractors would release all mortgages by the payment of legal a sum of420 $ 000.00, in this context that the plaintiffs, wishing to protect their initial investment,had agreed to buy the debt of the Toronto-Dominion Bank and enter into the agreementP-1;

64. However, (...) although they have tried repeatedly to pay the claims of holders of themortgage law, the plaintiffs have failed since (...), GMR Constructions refused and / orneglect to provide invoices representing work performed, although duly required to doso, both personally by the applicant by letter that Nader Dormani undersigned attorneys,as appears from a notice to the parties by leaving a copy at the significance hereof andfiled as an exhibit to support P-11;

65. In addition, the applicant Nader A. Dormani taught by Mr. Marcel Raymond, GMRConstructions, the legal hypothec in the amount of 2,700,000, issued Feb. 29, 2008 hadbeen at the express request of the defendant Pierre Heafey, even if the work had notbeen facts;

66. As more fully detailed in the following paragraphs, the actual amount of themortgage law should not have exceeded 490 $ 000.00 and this is confirmed by the factthat this is the amount that such claim has was acquired thereafter;

67. (...) The company 6152988 Canada Inc.., (...) Controlled by the defendants andSamir Chowieri Pierre Heafey, dated 15 and 16 May 2008, purchased seven (7) claimsof subcontractors who had published the legal mortgages two (2) claims of GMRConstructions, as appears in the index to buildings to the parties by leaving a copy atthe significance of this support and produced as Exhibit P-12;

68. (...) But (...) the applicants are of the opinion that the intervention of Pierre Heafeyand Samir Chowieri can result from a fortuitous event or a coincidence and that it



9

necessarily result of collusion between the defendant Rheal Dallaire and the latter inorder to force the withdrawal of the project applicants Association;

69. Resort with an assignment of its assets by the intervention of the defendant RhealDallaire dated 27 June and mortgages statutory construction are listed in priority

mortgage held by the plaintiffs, it was essential that they can pay amounts due to thelevel of these mortgages;

70. Among the debts reported by Rheal Dallaire, there is a claim of $ 3,200,000 to6152988 Canada Inc..,

71. (...) Moreover, the proof of claim filed in the case of bankruptcy of Resort by (...)6152988 Canada Inc.., A company owned and gentlemen Samir Chowieri PierreHeafey, the result of a transfer of legal mortgages for which the company acknowledgedhaving paid a sum of $ 490,000, all as appears from a notice of exercise signed by15380222 Me Robert Anthony May 29, 2008 press release in support hereof as Exhibit

P -20;72. The notice period 15380222 was published July 3, 2008 at a cost of $ 490,000.Now, barely a month later, on August 11, 2008, a notice of exercise signed on July 22,2008, bearing number 15488346, was issued for $ 953.23 USD 879 in relation to thesame assignment of claims than those listed in notice 15,380,222, all as appears fromthe notice of July 22, 2008 press release in support hereof as Exhibit P-21;

73. Applicants are entitled to question the legitimacy of the said notice are mentionedbecause they explained how difficult a claim can go from $ 490 000 to 879 $ 953.23 in

just one month;

74. Applicants note that it was again a trick of the defendants to prevent them to pay theamounts due in terms of legal mortgages of construction;

75. Despite their many attempts, applicants are still not able to verify the amounts;

76. Applicants have had in this respect no cooperation from the defendants and SamirChowieri Pierre Heafey or their attorney, Mr. Anthony Robert, even after being formallynotice dated August 18, 2008, such that it appears from such notice to the parties byleaving a copy at the significance of this support and produced as Exhibit P-22;

77. The defendants and Samir Chowieri Pierre Heafey have neglected or refused torespond to such notice;

78. However, it appears from the decision of the Honorable Judge Riordan, Exhibit P-24a) that the claim was finally assessed at the sum of $ 490 000;

79. (...);

VII OTHER ATTEMPTS OF Heafey Group



10

80. (...) In addition to the above, serious facts, clear and concordant including thefollowing facts and in general all facts related to this request, show (...) the plot reachedbetween the Heafey Group, Boyadjian Dallaire and the trustee to defeat the agreementP-1;

81. Rheal Dallaire the defendant was not involved with GMR Constructions to obtain theinvoices of the work done so that applicants can make payment, contrary to what heimplied in these emails 7, 26 and 27 March 2008 communicated to the parties in abundle and products in support hereof as Exhibit P-13;

82. Before the institution of judicial proceedings (...) which led to the decision of May 13,2008 the Honorable Judge Bédard, Exhibit P-26, the defendant had indicated to theapplicant Dallaire Nader Dormani have discussed several times with gentlemen andChowieri Heafey possibilities of understanding with them, although the defendant hasyet Rheal Dallaire informed the applicant that Dormani Nader did not intend to join

them. However, it appears that an agreement to acquire the "Château Cartier" by Mr.Heafey Chowieri and was prepared as of March 10, 2008, agreement that also curiouslyresembled that which was finally signed on 14 March 2008 Exhibit P-1, as appears fromthe said agreement to the parties by leaving a copy and filed in support hereof asExhibit P-14;

83. The conversations between the defendant and the defendants Rheal Dallaire SamirChowieri and Pierre Heafey continued, although the applicant has notified the NaderDormani Rheal Dallaire defendant not to communicate with them and also in spite of theconfidentiality clause contained in the Understanding P-1, as evidenced by the emailAndré Gingras, then the defendant's attorney Rheal Dallaire, dated 1 April 2008, copy ofwhich is communicated to the parties and filed in support hereof as Exhibit P-15;

84. The defendant was aware Rheal Dallaire and confirmed the applicant NaderDormani discussions and negotiations between SDI (Investments Quebec) and thedefendants and Samir Chowieri Pierre Heafey, as well as those occurring betweenGMR Constructions and them. Indeed, they had also tried to redeem the debtInvestment Quebec

85. The defendant Samir Chowieri had also confirmed to the applicant Dormani Naderduring a telephone conversation and meetings, it was actually in communication withthe defendant Rheal Dallaire;

86. The first contact took place in early April 2008. Samir defendant telephoned theplaintiff Chowieri Nader A. Dormani and recommended to agree to withdraw from thecase and that in return he would pay $ 1 million (...), which was denied by the applicant;

87. An encounter ensued in mid-April 2008. It was held at 1261 boul. St-JosephGatineau and lasted about 1 hour and a half. At this meeting, the defendant SamirChowieri (...) again insisted that Dormani withdrew from the case in exchange forpayment of a sum of $ 1 million (...) and threatened to put bankrupt Resort if he refused.



11

He also confirmed an agreement between Pierre Heafey, Rheal Dallaire and he, withoutrevealing the contents of the agreement;

88. On July 3, 2008 at 15h, following the bankruptcy of Resort, a second meeting washeld between the two men at 1185 de la Verendrye East, this time. The offer of a million

dollars is repeated and was again denied by the applicant. The defendant then saidSamir Chowieri the applicant Nader A. Dormani that because of bankruptcy, it will loseall his investment and that he and his henchmen will start again. He asked the applicantwhat he wants. The latter replied that he wants his 51%, according to the contract, andthe defendant submits Chowieri then a new offer: 1 / 3 of the project applicant, 1 / 3 thedefendant Heafey and 1 / 3 the defendant Chowieri , denied the plaintiff's offer. At thatsame meeting, the defendant confirmed to the applicant Chowieri Nader A. Dormani theagreement he has with the defendant Rheal Dallaire to the effect that he and PierreHeafey (Samir Chowieri) will give $ 1 million to Rheal Dallaire when they takepossession of the assets of Resort and if Rheal Dallaire sells 40 condos within a periodof six months, they will pay him two millions. A very similar agreement was signed

between Samir moreover Chowieri and Rheal Dallaire, as appears from the agreementof August 11, 2008 to the parties by leaving a copy at the meaning of this and producedtheir support as Exhibit P-16;

89. The defendant Rheal Dallaire has confirmed to Mr Peter Wilk, in a telephoneconversation that was recorded by the latter, the bankruptcy Resort was made for thesole purpose of getting rid of the applicants and also confirmed the involvement of thedefendant Pierre Heafey in the pending acquisition of Château Cartier. The defendantRheal Dallaire has made the following remarks by talking about the failure of "ChâteauCartier": "It Is A Planned bankruptcy. It Is to end the thing with Nader Dormani. (...) Sowhat we DID WAS we made the company insolvent in order to make it go from underthe Protection Act. Having that - HAVING done that, we just got rid of we-historicalagreement or the agreement Potential. "And later in that same conversation, thedefendant Dallaire said, referring presumably Pierre Heafey," Peter Is The buying one.", all as appears from the transcript of that telephone conversation that took place July7, 2008, communicated by leaving a copy to the parties and filed in support hereof asExhibit P-17;

90. In paragraph 29 of its decision of December 5, 2008, the Honorable Judge Riordanhad said the following on this discussion of the July 7, 2008:

"At trial, Dallaire Tried to wiggle out of the predicament this conversation Creates ForHim, His purpose Explanations, however earnest, Lose Their air When viewed in thelight of the facts in Other proof"

91. The defendant Pierre Heafey confirmed by letter over the (...) defendant, 6963251Canada Inc.., Dated May 12, 2008, will buy the debt of approximately $ Parscom to five(5) million, all as appears from the letter of 12 May 2008 addressed to Mr. RhealDallaire, to the parties by leaving a copy at the significance of this support and producedas Exhibit P-18;



12

92. In the days following the appointment of Chantal Gingras as trustee interim, in May2008, a meeting took place between me and Andre Gingras Dormani Nader at theChateau Cartier;

93. At that meeting, Mr. Gingras has advised Mr. Dormani it would be better to settle the

matter, failing which would make Pierre Heafey Resort bankrupt;94. It was also during this meeting that for the first time, Rheal Dallaire has invoked alease between Resort and one of his companies, Château Cartier Development, whichallowed him to stay put;

95. In short, the defendants and Samir Chowieri Pierre Heafey, who knew full well that acontract existed between the plaintiffs and the defendant Rheal Dallaire, were stillassociated with the defendant Rheal Dallaire to take over the assets of Resort toapplicants, such that it appears from the offer to purchase business by 6963251Canada inc. for Resort Investors International ULC with respect to the "Château

Cartier," prepared as of May 2, 2008, to the parties by leaving a copy at the significanceof this support and produced as Exhibit P-19;

96. Pierre Heafey and Samir Chowieri have confirmed their intention to applicants at allcosts to acquire the Chateau Cartier, they have also managed to December 10, 2008,with the help of trustee Noubar Boyadjian ;

VIII TRUSTEE'S ROLE IN THE Boyadjian FILE BANKRUPTCY OF RESORT

97. Unfortunately, although Judge Riordan will be asked about the role of the trusteeNoubar Boyadjian folder (see paragraph 26 of Judgement Exhibit P-24a) one couldsuspect that the said trustee was closely linked to the defendants and that any theprocess it had developed by his trial was doomed to failure, with regard to applicants;

98. Indeed, the plaintiffs could not come out ahead of the bidding process, as will bedemonstrated more fully in the investigation and hearing, given the active role of thetrustee to defend the position of the Group Heafey,;

99. It is for this reason that the plaintiffs have made no offer to purchase the assetsResort in the bidding process established by the judge Riordan, all as more fullyexplained below;

100. As mentioned above, the Honorable Judge Riordan questioned the role of thetrustee in the bankruptcy case of Resort;

101. Indeed, as appears from paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Judgement of 5 December2008 (Exhibit P-24a), Judge Riordan said it is surprising that the trustee has notcommunicated with the interim receiver, Chantal Gingras before the bankruptcy,especially given the decision of the Honorable Judge Bédard (Exhibit P-26), especiallysince he had read and he was aware of the appointment of interim receiver;



13

102. Judge Riordan asks more about the omission of the trustee, since according toinformation that had been submitted by the defendant Dallaire, namely the financialstatements Resort in December 2007, provided for the purposes hereof as Exhibit P -28, the hotel had net income after taxes of $ 583 729 in 2007;

103. However, as already mentioned, the Honorable Judge Riordan was not awarewhen he filed his trial the real role of the trustee Noubar Boyadjian on the issue ofbankruptcy Resort, since this information has been known applicants that following thedecision of December 5, 2008 (Exhibit 24a):

104. Indeed, following this ruling, the plaintiffs began to question more seriously theactions of the trustee Boyadjian, as part of its management of the bankruptcy case ofResort;

105. Initially, it appears that the defendant Dallaire at the time of the sale of goodsResort, was himself an undischarged bankrupt prior to bankruptcy;

106. Although the trustee Boyadjian had access to this information, it is omitted,neglected or decided not to withhold such information, he could not ignore the fact thatRheal Dallaire was an undischarged bankrupt;

107. Given his state of undischarged bankrupt, the defendant Dallaire could not act as adirector of Resort;

108. In retrospect, it appears that the trustee Boyadjian was recommended by RhealDallaire Pierre Heafey and that the latter's request that would have mandated RhealDallaire;

109. In the days preceding the bankruptcy Resort, there were even meetings anddiscussions between Dallaire, Heafey Boyadjian and the trustee;

110. However, during one of his testimony before the Honorable Judge Riordan, thetrustee Boyadjian said he had never met Mr. Heafey to discuss this issue before thebankruptcy Resort, which is perjury on the part of Boyadjian trustee, who is an officer of

justice;

111. According to information recently obtained by the plaintiffs, before the involvementof Noubar Boyadjian folder, Rheal Dallaire and his attorneys believed they couldcircumvent the agreement of 14 March 2008 and thus get rid of the plaintiffs by placingResort under the protection of Arrangement Act with the Companies' Creditors. It wouldNoubar Boyadjian, following the mandate given to it, which would have suggested thebankruptcy outright Resort, given that the intention of Rheal Dallaire and Pierre Heafeywas to get rid of Dormani not restructure Resort which did not need restructuring at thattime, particularly in view of the arrangement P-1;

112. Moreover, the trustee would Boyadjian suggested opening the bankruptcy case inthe district of Montreal rather than that of Hull, all to facilitate the monitoring and



14

management of the case and also to evade the jurisdiction of judges Hull following thedecision of the Honorable Judge Bédard, had knowledge of the facts of the case andthe criminal past of Dallaire;

113. To allow the introduction of the file in the district of Montreal, the trustee Boyadjian

Rheal Dallaire recommended to proceed with the change of address of registered officeResort, which was made on the morning of June 27, 2008, or in the hours preceding thefiling of the assignment Resort, which filing was done electronically by the trusteeBoyadjian;

114. Also prior to the filing of the assignment for the Resort, the trustee would BoyadjianRheal Dallaire also recommended to get the former owners of Château Cartierassignments of the shareholder have a value of more than 7 million dollars which wasregistered last financial statements of the company;

115. Although the trustee knew that when the bankruptcy Resort this claim was not

owned by Rheal Dallaire, he would have suggested the latter to obtain a documentconfirming the transfer of this debt, all to facilitate the control of the vote at meetings ofcreditors to come;

116. Thus, the sale of it due to shareholders of more than $ 7 million was madeconcurrently with the bankruptcy, and was confirmed by a document dated February 7,2008, before signing the contract Exhibit P-1 , all to knowledge and as directed by thetrustee in bankruptcy and, in order that this assignment is not binding on applicants;

117. Moreover, although Rheal Dallaire had given to applicants in February 2008 all ofthe documentation that showed he had acquired the former owners of the Resort ofthese actions, never do this assignment they had been disclosed before the bankruptcy;

118. The trustee would also have suggested Boyadjian Rheal Dallaire to issue amortgage of $ 275 000 on equipment and movable assets of the Château Cartier infavor of a company controlled by Rheal Dallaire and before the filing of the bankruptcy,which was made by Mr. Dallaire, through one of his attorneys, namely Jean-PierreMichon;

119. However, no consideration has been given by the holder of the mortgage to thepurchaser to obtain the chattel mortgage and that, to the knowledge of the trustee;

120. By participating in the conspiracy and Rheal Dallaire Groupe Heafey to get rid ofthe agreement between the applicants Dallaire, Noubar Boyadjian has assumedresponsibility vis-à-vis the applicants and must be condemned jointly and severally topay the plaintiffs any damages they have suffered, all in accordance with the reliefsought herein;

121. Applicants believe that none of the defendants were able to carry out this planwithout the participation and involvement of each of them;



15

122. As for the defendant, Litwin Boyadjian, she is responsible for the actions of hisrepresentative and principal officer;

123. Even after being appointed trustee and the bankruptcy of orchestrating Resort withother defendants, Noubar Boyadjian continued to be involved in the plot by giving the

reins of the Chateau Cartier Rheal Dallaire, who, although down , continued to be theone who really controlled with Pierre Heafey Resort;

124. Throughout the challenge to the bankruptcy of Resort and following the process ofsale of assets Resort endorsed by the Honorable Judge Riordan, the trustee Boyadjianwas actively involved with Mr. Heafey, Mr. and Mr. Dallaire Chowieri preparationstrategies surrounding the recommendations of the Tribunal in hearings before theHonorable Judge Riordan;

125. He also participated in the preparation of bids which were deposited at differentstages in the judicial process and the last offer made in December 2008 that led to the

purchase of the assets of Resort by a company controlled by Pierre Heafey and SamirChowieri or the defendant 6963251 Canada Inc..;

126. In addition, the trustee has Boyadjian, upon receipt of proof of claim property of theplaintiff Parscom, rejected it as of August 6, 2008, thereby deciding that the agreementof March 14, 2008 did not grant the right to Parscom Resort on assets, all as appearsfrom the notice of rejection of the trustee and the proof of claim Parscom, disclosed in abundle as exhibit P-29;

127. It is surprising that all proofs of claim filed with the trustee, or several hundred,including all claims unfounded Group Dallaire, only the proof of claim referred to in thepreceding paragraph was rejected before the hearing of the case to the HonorableJudge Riordan, has recognized the trustee before the latter had not even reviewed theproofs of claim to Dallaire and its related companies;

128. Moreover, as part of its case management of the Resort bankruptcy, the trusteeBoyadjian has prepared a background paper to solicit potential buyers of the assets ofResort and handed it to different people, with the exclusion of applicants, evenrecommending Chantal Gingras Dormani ensure that Nader does not receive a copy ofthis document, copy of the information being communicated as Exhibit P-30;

129. Informed of this approach by a third party, 48 hours before the date of submissionof tenders, the plaintiffs submitted a bid for the assets, subject to all of their appeals, asappears by a copy of supply and a letter from prosecutors provided Parscom datedOctober 3, 2008, provided in a bundle as exhibit P-31;

130. Following receipt of various offers, including that of Parscom, the trustee is toprepare and file the record of the Court a motion entitled "Motion for directions to acceptan offer, sale and distribute the APPROVe Proceeds of the sale", such that it appearsfrom a copy of the application dated 10 October 2008 and parts support package asprovided in Exhibit P-32;



16

131. The trustee then strongly recommended the proposal Heafey Group found thepiece mentioned in the preceding paragraph, arguing that it was the best;

132. However, the offer provided for payment of a sum of 3.6 million dollars in claims

Dallaire, what was considered the trustee to assert that more than $ 4 million wasavailable for unsecured creditors, while , by the admission of the trustee, claimsanalysis Dallaire had not been made and that, furthermore, these receivables were soldto the bidder, the trustee could not ignore;

133. Without the $ 3.6 million dollars, covering claims Dallaire, offering to unsecuredcreditors of Resort was lower than Parscom;

134. This request was not accepted by the judge Riordan, who has set up a newbidding process between the two main potential buyers;

135. As part of its administration of the Chateau Cartier, the trustee has not Boyadjianrepeatedly before the Tribunal and its requests that he lacked the money to manage thiscompany, even requesting the Court of First Instance authorization for funding special(DIP financing), while at the end of his administration he remained money in the bankaccount without special funding has needed to be used;

136. The day for the opening of bids assets Resort, is December 9, 2008, the applicantDorman, accompanied by one of his attorneys, Mr. Peter McMartin, came to the officeof the trustee to 16 hours in order to file an initial offer for $ 1.5 million dollars;

137. Unfortunately, the facts hereinafter set forth, then it became clear that the trusteeBoyadjian was in league with the Heafey Group and that very large sums of moneyhave been frozen for long periods in addition to requiring significant investment time andmoney to challenge future decisions of the trustee;

138. Initially, Mr. Dormani was then reminded of two special meetings he had with thetrustee Boyadjian since his appointment as trustee in the trustee about which some hadmarked:

a) a first meeting took place around the month of August 2008 in a restaurant in theByward Market in Ottawa, where the defendant was present Dallaire;

b) at the meeting, the trustee proposed to Mr. Boyadjian Dormani to settle the matter bypaying a sum of 1.2 million dollars to Mr. Dallaire and a sum of $ 300 000 for unsecuredcreditors;

c) at that time, Mr. Dorman was surprised that this proposal was clearly unfavorable forthe unsecured creditors especially as it came from the trustee, whose role should be toprotect the unsecured creditors of Resort;

d) there has been no response to that discussion;



17

e) the second meeting, which recalled Mr. Dorman, took place just before the start ofthe hearings before Judge Riordan;

f) Mr. Dormani recalled the verbal exchange with the trustee Boyadjian;

"Mr. Dorman: Which I do not know God you believe in, Does not it bother you aim ThatYou are Helping these guys to steal the Hotel? Can you sleep at night Knowing ThatYou're Helping these guys take away the 51% That Bought fair and square we "?

The trustee then replied, laughing: "The only God I know is money"

139. In addition, the day before, at a meeting with Pierre Heafey, the latter told him thatif he (Dorman) present an offer to purchase the assets of the Resort next day he(Heafey) by removing a lot of money since he had acquired all the claims of Dallaire andthat would ensure them recognized as valid;

140. Mr. Dormani was then also recalled several events that had occurred since thecollapse of Resort to date which questioned the impartiality of the trustee, including:

a) powers of attorney signed by certain creditors for Parscom Enterprises Inc.. had beenset aside by the trustee and not attached to all proofs of claim when representatives ofthe applicants came to the trustee's office to learn about such proofs of claim;

b) the trustee had helped maintain their position at the hotel close associates of RhealDallaire and even increased the salaries of some of them;

c) Dallaire had full access to the Chateau Cartier as well as various documents andinformation concerning the company;

d) At the beginning of July 2008, Nader Dormani the trustee had offered a proposal thatwould have paid about 50% of the claims of unsecured creditors, the trustee hadrejected out of hand;

141. It became obvious to Mr. Dormani he had no chance of success to acquire theassets of Resort, given the total lack of integrity and impartiality of the trusteeBoyadjian;

142. Furthermore, it should be noted that 17.00, no bids had yet been filed by theHeafey Group and that only after the trustee has authorized two extensions of time thatthe Heafey Group has finally filed a bid;

143. It appears in fact that while the applicant Dorman, deciding the fate of its bid, thetrustee Boyadjian and Groupe Heafey, by telephone, concocted various strategies in theabsence of Dorman, in offices closed, pending the arrival Dallaire who led checksHeafey Group, which was done at 5:28 p.m.;



18

144. The trustee insisted that Mr. Boyadjian Dormani return of their offers before thefiling of the offer Heafey Group;

145. Moreover, between 17 am and 5:30 p.m., when the prosecutor Heafey Group whowas present at the trustee's office, left the room, the applicant Dormani wanted to follow

to see what was happening, the trustee Boyadjian She was forbidden to do;146. It is within minutes of the start of the Attorney Heafey Group that eventually thesupply of the latter was finally received;

147. It should be noted that the applicant Dormani had with him a check in the amountof $ 1,000,000 representing the deposit he should join his offer and he had obtained thenecessary funding for full payment of assets;

148. Consequently, the applicant Dormani decided not to submit a bid, as a result of hisanalysis of the situation he had no chance of success especially given that he could

have no confidence in the integrity of the trustee Boyadjian . He then filed an envelopethat contains no offer, while inserting a letter explaining why he could not make offer, asappears from the letter submitted as Exhibit P-33;

149. Even after the opening of tenders and after the decision of December 10, 2008 theHonorable Judge Riordan, Exhibit P-24b), the trustee continued to promote the HeafeyGroup including the refusal to pay the interest payment date in the capital This requireda request for clarification finally ordered by the trial judge Riordan March 17, 2009,Exhibit P-24c);

150. The participation of Noubar Boyadjian the plot is even more obvious that this willbe demonstrated at the hearing on 8 July 2008, it was agreed among the otherdefendants and himself that he would receive a sum between $ 400 000 in the eventthat the plaintiffs presented no challenge and 1.2 million dollars if not as professionalfees, in order to fulfill its mandate in bankruptcy Resort, which was then not mandatethat 'in its infancy;

151. It is clear that the mission of the trustee Boyadjian, throughout the case, was tosee to the interests of Heafey Group and ensure that it acquires the assets of Resort;

152. Since these events, the applicants have been contacted several times by both theRoyal Canadian Mounted Police by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy who investigate,independently of the actions of the defendants in the case of bankruptcy of Resort;

IX DAMAGE TO APPLICANTS

153. The plaintiffs (...) then learned that the bankruptcy Resort was made fraudulently,with the sole aim to remove the agreement of 14 March 2008 and exclude them fromthe administration of the company and they consequently instituted proceedings forannulment of bankruptcy;



19

154. (...)

155. It should be noted that the investment project that had been offered by RhealDallaire, given the exceptional circumstances that surrounded it, was a unique businessopportunity for the applicants. It is unlikely that an opportunity of this nature means to

them in the Outaouais region;156. The conclusion of the agreement P-1 required intense negotiations that lastedseveral weeks and need significant risks to the applicants;

157. According to information obtained by the defendant Samir Chowieri applicants, thegoal of the defendants was that following the bankruptcy of Resort, the defendantsPierre Heafey and Samir Chowieri lines acquire the company and that the defendantscontinued their conversion project Hotel for sale condominium units, with the exceptionof applicants;

158. The defendant Samir Chowieri even confirmed to the applicant Nader A. Dormanithat an agreement existed between them and Rheal Dallaire and reported on the detailsof it;

159. Following these findings, the plaintiffs are aware that the defendant Rheal Dallaire(...) following the intervention of Peter and Samir Heafey Chowieri decided to renege onthe agreement of March 14, 2008, by which applicants were seen to transfer ownershipof all assets of Resort;

160. (...);

161. The plaintiffs suffered considerable damage due to the actions of the defendants;

162. The applicant Mehdi (Michael) Razi, March 17, 2008, immediately after the signingof the agreement P-1, left his job the last two years to Telesat Canada, where heworked as a specialist in engineering at an annual salary of 130 $ 000.00, withoutcompensation, to ensure now the co-management of Château Cartier, which did nothappen;

163. Leaving his job the last two decades, Mr. Razi, who is an engineer in the field ofsatellites, has given up a career that had previously been profitable and has renouncedall the benefits associated with this job, he can not get by in retirement;

164. Under section 17 of the agreement P-1, the annual salary of the applicant Mehdi(Michael) Razi was to be 150 $ 000.00;

165. The applicant Mehdi (Michael) Razi is therefore entitled to claim a total of 150defendants $ 000.00 in compensation for the loss of earnings, representing a year'ssalary under the agreement P-1, all with interest at the legal rate plus the additionalindemnity provided for in Article 1619 CCQ calculated from the date of the originalapplication, which amount he claims in this;



20

166. (...)

167. The plaintiff, Parscom Enterprises Inc.., Claims (...) the defendants, jointly andseverally the sum of two hundred sixty-four thousand five hundred fifty-one dollars and

seventy-nine cents ($ 551.79 264), all with interest at the legal rate, plus the additionalindemnity provided for in section 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec, for the payment ofthe furniture of the fifth and sixth floor of the Château Cartier, as appears from the stateof account as of March 31, 2008 and Mega Mitsubishi checks attached, communicatedto the parties in a bundle by leaving a copy at the significance of these as Exhibit P-23;

168. Especially given the bad faith of the defendants, Parscom Enterprises Inc.. asksthis Honorable Court order the defendants jointly and severally, to reimburse allprofessional fees it had incurred and that it will incur in this case and in cases 550-17-003809-082 and 500 - 11-033664-083, specifically the judicial and extrajudicial fees ofhis lawyers, notaries and its receiver Ginsberg Gingras (...);

169. In particular, for the record 550-11-033664-083, the plaintiff, Parscom EnterprisesInc.., Paid his attorneys a total of 200 $ 000.00 it is entitled to claim the defendants withinterest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity from the introduction of the motionto institute proceedings in this case;

170. The plaintiff, Parscom Enterprises Inc.., Also paid its attorneys and notaries sum of$ 50 000 as professional fees necessary for the negotiation and conclusion of theagreement Exhibit P-1, after it is right to claim the defendants jointly and severally withinterest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity provided for in Article 1619 CCQcalculated from the date of the original application;

171. As for the case 550-17-003809-082, plaintiff Parscom Enterprises Inc.. paid a sumof 68 $ 037.60 to his attorneys in addition to a sum of 69 $ 589.83 in fees to the interimreceiver, Chantal Gingras, sums it claims the defendants with interest at the statutoryrate more additional indemnity from the introduction of the motion to instituteproceedings in this case;

172. Plaintiff Parscom Enterprises Inc.. also calls for the reimbursement ofdisbursements and fees of his solicitors in the preparation of acts of subrogation of theclaim of the TD Bank in the amount of 9 $ 738.38 and an additional $ 4 $ 732.21 forcosts and expenses for the preparation of acts of subrogation of the claim ofInvestissement Québec, is are they entitled to claim the defendants jointly and severallywith interest at the legal rate plus the additional indemnity from the introduction of theoriginal application in this case;

173. It should be noted that some of the sums mentioned above had been claimed bythe plaintiff Parscom Enterprises Inc.. as part of an application for appeal from adecision of the Trustees Ginsberg, Gingras & Associates Inc.. and Litwin Boyadjian Inc.



21

rejecting certain claims made in bankruptcy Resort Investors International ULC and thatthese claims were rejected by the Honorable Judge Louis-Philippe Landry, datedJanuary 5, 2010, the latter adding the following:

"The Group has Dormani this reason to believe that Dallaire's actions caused him harm.

Group Dormani could assert his claim for damages, if any, against those he believeshave acted against the rules of good faith "

The whole as it appears that the trial January 5, 2010, provided as Exhibit P-34;

174. As appears also Judgement of the Honorable Judge Landry, all receivables of theGroup Dallaire were rejected by the bankruptcy trustee in the absence of documentaryevidence produced by the Group Dallaire and / or Heafey Group on these claims;

175. It is clear that Dallaire claims were largely fraudulent and that they had beenconcocted to enable the Group Heafey, following the acquisition of the latter to hold a

considerable advantage in the file;176. As a result of the foregoing, the plaintiff, Parscom Enterprises Inc.., Is entitled toclaim the defendants, jointly and severally, loss of profits it could have achieved had itbeen able to acquire the assets of Resort as originally prescribed in the agreement,Exhibit P-1;

177. Indeed, as appears from the agreement, Exhibit P-1, the parties agreed to proceedwith the recovery of the business including performing the following steps:

a) Phase I "Condo-hotel;b) Setting property divided by 125 hotel rooms;c) Sale of rooms in Phase I;d) Phase 2: "Getting divided ownership of additional rooms depending on the result ofsales of Phase I";e) Phase 3: "Getting divided ownership of rooms in order to turn them into luxurycondos";

178. This development project was already part of an initial plan of developmentprepared by the Château Cartier, as appears from a booklet produced in 2007 by thedefendant, Rheal Dallaire, provided as Exhibit P-35;

179. The housing project had received a legal opinion from the law firm BCF dated July24, 2007, as appears that legal advice provided as Exhibit P-36;

180. In March 2008, it appears that more than a score of preliminary contracts of sale ofthe first condo-hotel units, with deposits of at least $ 25,000 had already been signed bythe prospective buyer and the defendant, Rheal Dallaire, as will be demonstrated morefully in the investigation and hearing;

181. Moreover, the agreement of August 2008, Exhibit P-16, states that the defendants



22

intended to continue this project of condo-hotel;

182. It appears that since the acquisition by the Group's assets Heafey Resort, it was onsale and began the construction of luxury condominiums on the grounds of ChâteauCartier, as appears from an expansion Commercial "Hotel Cartier" Phase I, Aylmer,

approved by the City of Gatineau, by resolution dated October 5, 2010, as appearsmore fully in the commercial expansion of the resolution submitted as Exhibit P-37 ;

183. Given the case law in such matters, the plaintiff, Parscom Enterprises Inc.. Wouldbe entitled to claim the defendants the profits they may make the operation of theChateau Cartier and its commercial expansion, and the sale of condominiums;

184. According to a preliminary assessment, the entire project to expand the ChâteauCartier, about 270 housing units, as appears by a copy of the project website,represents a profit of $ 22 million, that amount the plaintiff, Parscom Enterprises Inc.. isentitled to claim the defendants subject to amend this amount when the exact value of

the profits will be known, a copy of two websites on the expansion project wasannounced in Château Cartier bundle as exhibit P-38;

185. Moreover, the plaintiff, Parscom Enterprises Inc.., Was assessed on a preliminarybasis, the value of assets it has obtained following the completion of the recoveryproject agreed in the agreement Exhibit P-1, this value was set at $ 50.9 million, amountto complete, since the experts chosen to prepare this assessment are still not inpossession of all necessary documentation and required to complete this assessment;

186. Based on this evaluation and taking into account the costs of acquiring the assetsof Resort, the plaintiff, Parscom Enterprises Inc.., Is entitled to claim the defendants,

jointly and severally, the sum of $ 32 million, subject to adjustment following finalizationof expertise;

187. In summary, the plaintiff, Parscom Enterprises Inc.., Is entitled to claim a sum of 54million U.S. dollars, a sum to be perfected, the defendants, jointly and severally, as lossof future profits;

188. The plaintiff, Nader Dormani (...) calls this Honorable Court to order the defendants jointly and severally, to pay (...) an amount (...) two hundred fifty thousand dollars (250 $000.00) for stress disorders and disadvantages, all with interest at the legal rate, plusthe additional indemnity provided for in section 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec;

189. For its part, the applicant, Mehdi (Michael) Razi, also calls this Honourable Court toorder the defendants jointly and severally, to pay a sum of two hundred fifty thousanddollars (250 $ 000.00) for stress disorders and disadvantages, all with interest at thelegal rate, plus the additional indemnity provided for in section 1619 of the Civil Code ofQuebec;

190. The plaintiffs are seeking more to this Honorable Court that the corporate veil islifted to the place of 6918824 Canada Inc. company., 6152988 Canada Inc.. and



23

6963251 Canada Inc.. against defendants that they are alter egos;

191. This application is well founded in fact and law;

THEREFORE, the Court should:

WELCOME to this original application amended;

CONDEMN the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff ParscomEnterprises Inc.. professional fees it had incurred and that it will incur in this case andthe records and 550-17-003809-082 500-11-033664-083, specifically the judicial andextrajudicial fees of his lawyers, its notaries and receiver Ginsberg Gingras (...), if any,for a total three hundred ninety-two thousand and ninety-eight dollars and two cents ($098.02 392), subject to adjustment, the all with interest at the legal rate, plus theadditional indemnity provided for in section 1619 of the Civil Code of Quebec, asdamages, calculated from the introduction of the original application;

CONDEMN the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff ParscomEnterprises Inc.. an amount of fifty-four million dollars ($ 000.00 54,000) as a loss offuture profits, subject to amend this amount when the exact value of this loss is known,all with interest at the rate legal, plus the additional indemnity provided for in section1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated since the introduction of the originalapplication;

CONDEMN the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff Mehdi (Michael)Razi one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($ 000.00 150) as compensation for his lostwages, representing a year's salary under P-1 agreement, all with interest at the legalrate, plus the additional indemnity provided for in section 1619 of the Civil Code ofQuébec, calculated from the date of the original application;

CONADAMNER the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff ParscomEnterprises Inc.. a sum of two hundred sixty-four thousand five hundred fifty-one dollarsand seventy-nine cents ($ 551.79 264) for the payment of the furniture of the fifth andsixth floors of the Château Cartier, all with interest at the legal rate, plus the additionalindemnity provided for in section 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated from thedate of the original application;

CONDEMN the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff Nader Dormani asum of two hundred fifty thousand dollars (250 $ 000.00) for stress, trouble andinconvenience, all with interest at the legal rate, plus the additional indemnity underarticle 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated from the date of the originalapplication;

CONDEMN the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff Mehdi (Michael)Razi a sum of two hundred fifty thousand dollars (250 $ 000.00) for stress, trouble andinconvenience, all with interest at the legal rate, plus the additional indemnity providedfor in section 1619 of the Civil Code of Québec, calculated from the date of the original



24

application;

THE WHOLE with costs in their entirety, including all fees and expenses of experts andall extra-judicial fees of counsel for plaintiffs in this case.

GATINEAU, this June 22, 2011

_______________________________CHRISTMAS & ASSOCIATES, LLPSolicitors for the plaintiffs

NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS ______________________________________________________________________

To: Ms. Natacha MignonRAVINSKY RYAN LEMOINE, LLP1010, rue de la Gauchetière, Suite 1200Montreal (Quebec) H3B 2N2Attorneys Rheal Dallaire

-And-

Me Robert AnthonyDeveau Bourgeois Gagné Hébert & Associates LLP867, boulevard Saint-René Ouest, Suite 8Gatineau (Québec) J8T 7X6Attorneys Pierre Heafey and Samir Chowieri

-And-

Marc TremblayDeveau Bourgeois Gagné Hébert and ass13, rue St-AndréSaint-André-Avellin (Quebec) J0V 1W0Attorneys Pierre Heafey and Samir Chowieri

-And-

6963251 CANADA INC.101-1885, rue St-LouisGatineau (Québec) J8T 6G4

-And-



25

Noubar Boyadjian,Litwin Boyadjian Inc.602-1411, rue PeelMontreal (Quebec) H3A 1S5

-And-Litwin Boyadjian Inc..602-1411, rue PeelMontreal (Quebec) H3A 1S5

TAKE NOTICE that the plaintiffs filed at the Registry of the Superior Court of the judicialdistrict of Hull, this application.

To answer this request, you must appear in writing, personally or by counsel at thecourthouse in Gatineau, located at 17 Laurier Street, within ten (10) days after serviceof this amended motion.

Failure to appear within this period, a decision by default may be rendered against youwithout further notice upon the expiry of that period of ten (10) days.

If you appear, the amended motion will be presented in court August 2, 2011, at 9:00am in Room 1, Courthouse and the court may, on that date, exercise the powersnecessary to ensure the smooth of the action or proceeding with the hearing of thecase, unless you agree in writing with the plaintiff or his lawyer to a schedule ofdeadlines to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings, which shall be filed in thecourt.

In support of their amended motion to institute proceedings, the applicants complain ofthe following documents:

EXHIBIT P-1: copy of a signed partnership agreement dated March 14, 2008;

EXHIBIT P-2: copies the status information on the register Resort Registrar ofcompanies and the amending declaration filed May 21, 2008 and the register of jointstock companies in Nova Scotia, products in a bundle;

EXHIBIT P-3: copies of the register of the Registrar of Business and Strategycomputerized record company 6918824 Canada inc., Products in a bundle;

EXHIBIT P-4: copies the status information on the Trust of the family-Dallaire Quirionthe Register of Registrar of companies and the amending declaration filed June 3, 2008,produced in a bundle;

EXHIBIT P-5: copy of the statement Parscom information on the Register of Registrar of



26

companies;

EXHIBIT P-6: copy of the index to buildings;

EXHIBIT P-7: a copy of the payment agreement and supporting documents, produced

in a bundle;EXHIBIT P-8: copy of the receipt subrogation;

EXHIBIT P-9: copy of the agreement of March 28, 2008 and proof of payment productsin a bundle;

EXHIBIT P-10: copy of the construction contract;

EXHIBIT P-11: copy of the notice to the parties;

EXHIBIT P-12: copy of the index to buildings;EXHIBIT P-13: copy of email on 7, 26 and March 27, 2008, produced in a bundle;

EXHIBIT P-14 agreement to acquire the "Château Cartier" by Mr. Heafey Chowieri andprepared as of March 10, 2008;

EXHIBIT P-15: André Gingras email dated 1 April 2008;

EXHIBIT P-16: copy of the agreement of August 11, 2008;

EXHIBIT P-17: transcript of the telephone conversation between Mr. Rheal Dallaire andMr. Peter Wilk held July 7, 2008;

EXHIBIT P-18: copy of the letter of 12 May 2008 addressed to Mr. Rheal Dallaire;

EXHIBIT P-19: Promise to Purchase Company by 6963251 Canada inc. for ResortInvestors International ULC with respect to the "Château Cartier," prepared as of May 2,2008,

EXHIBIT P-20: copy of the notice period 15,380,222 signed by Mr. Robert Anthony May29, 2008;

EXHIBIT P-21: copy of the notice of July 22, 2008;

EXHIBIT P-22: copy of the notice dated August 18, 2008 to the parties;

EXHIBIT P-23: copy of the statement dated March 31, 2008 and Mega Mitsubishichecks attached, in a bundle products;



27

EXHIBIT P-24a): J. Riordan Judgement of 5 December 2008;

EXHIBIT P-24b): J. Riordan Judgement of 10 December 2008;

EXHIBIT P-24c): J. Riordan Judgement of 17 March 2009;

EXHIBIT P-25: Agreement of 2 May 2008 between Dallaire and Heafey Group;

EXHIBIT P-26: Interlocutory Judgement of the Honourable Martin Bédard, 13 May 2008to file 550-17-003809-082;

EXHIBIT P-27: Judgement of the Honourable Louise Otis of June 13, 2008 to file 500-09-018682-088;

EXHIBIT P-28: Financial Statements Resort in December 2007;

EXHIBIT P-29: Notice of rejection of the trustee and proof of claim Parscom;EXHIBIT P-30: Background to solicit potential buyers of the assets of Resort;

EXHIBIT P-31: Take Over the applicants letter and reserve prosecutors Parscom datedOctober 3, 2008;

EXHIBIT P-32: Copy of "Motion for directions to accept an offer, sale and distribute theAPPROVe Proceeds of the sale" of 10 October 2008 and parts support;

EXHIBIT P-33: Letter from applicant Dormani explaining why he could not make offer;

EXHIBIT P-34: Judgement of the Honorable Judge Louis-Philippe Landry of January 5,2010;

EXHIBIT P-35: Explanatory brochure produced in 2007 by the defendant, RhealDallaire;

EXHIBIT P-36: Legal Notice of the law firm BCF of 24 July 2007;

EXHIBIT P-37: Resolution of the City of Gatineau from October 5, 2010 approving thecommercial expansion "Hotel Cartier" Phase I;

EXHIBIT P-38: Copy of two websites on the expansion project of the Château Cartier;

Copy of the documents are available on request.

Transfer request on a small claim

If the amount you claimed is less than or equal to $ 7 000 and if, as plaintiff, you could



28

have such an application to the Small Claims Division, you can obtain from the clerkthat the application be processed according to the rules provided for in Book VIII of theCode of Civil Procedure (RSQ, c. C-25). Failure to submit this request, you will beordered to pay costs above those provided for in Book VIII of the Code.

Please act accordingly.GATINEAU, this June 22, 2011

_______________________________CHRISTMAS & ASSOCIATES, LLPSolicitors for the plaintiffs

heafey group-samir chowieri forced to repay millions by quebec court for fraud

Documents