Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants failed to appear at a critical hearing, prompting the Court to proceed in their absence and dismiss their application.

• Discrepancies in defense counsel's affidavit raised concerns about credibility and procedural compliance.

• Out-of-province counsel exhibited unfamiliarity with B.C. Supreme Court practice and etiquette.

• The Court emphasized the heightened duty of candour expected from lawyers, especially in affidavit evidence.

• Defendants’ justification for non-appearance was found implausible and inconsistent with evidence.

• Special costs were awarded due to the defendants' conduct and procedural missteps.

Facts of the Case

This case arose from a civil litigation matter in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, where the plaintiffs, Homa Shahrokhi and Vangate Immigration Consulting Inc., had obtained a default judgment in December 2023 against the defendants, Afshin Yazdani (practicing as Yazdani Law Group) and YLG Professional Corporation. The defendants filed a notice of application on January 31, 2025, seeking to set aside that default judgment.

The matter was scheduled for hearing on February 28, 2025. On that day, the defendants, through counsel Alwin Salgado, sought to adjourn the hearing to allow for cross-examination of a plaintiff’s affiant. The Court expressed concerns about the repeated delays requested by the defendants and stood the matter down until 2:00 p.m. for prioritization. When the Court reconvened in the afternoon, counsel for the defendants failed to return, and the plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to reach him despite multiple attempts. The Court, noting the absence, granted the plaintiffs’ request to dismiss the defendants’ application and declared service on Mr. Yazdani as valid.

Procedural Developments and Affidavit Issues

Pursuant to a procedural allowance in the February 28 decision, a supplementary hearing was held on March 26, 2025. The Court reviewed an affidavit filed by Mr. Salgado attempting to explain his absence. He claimed to have misunderstood the Court's directions and did not realize he was expected to return that afternoon. However, upon questioning, he admitted to receiving a 2:04 p.m. email from the plaintiffs’ counsel—contrary to statements in his affidavit denying such receipt. This contradiction, among others, cast doubt on the reliability of his evidence.

Justice Sharma raised multiple concerns with Mr. Salgado’s professional conduct, including inaccuracies in his affidavit, repeated procedural errors, and a lack of familiarity with local court rules. The Court was particularly troubled by his misstatements under oath and emphasized the professional duty of lawyers to be forthright and accurate in dealings with the Court.

Outcome and Court’s Rationale

Justice Sharma declined to set aside the February 28 order dismissing the defendants' application. The judgment cited several factors: the unreliability of Mr. Salgado’s affidavit, his failure to understand or follow B.C. court procedure, and the broader impact of continued delays on the plaintiffs. The Court found no valid reason for the defendants’ absence and determined that setting aside the previous order would result in injustice to the plaintiffs.

Additionally, while special costs had already been awarded in principle in the earlier ruling, the Court allowed the defendants to submit a response of no more than five pages within 14 days to address the amount claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had submitted an affidavit supporting special costs of $9,438.96, citing procedural misconduct and resulting delays.

In conclusion, the Court's decisions reinforced the importance of procedural adherence, professional competence, and truthful communication with the Court, particularly when default judgments and costs are at stake.