An expected Port Moody Daycare project has transformed into a struggle of the courtroom with duel stories, contract cuffs and defamation claims.
On July 15, the owners of the AcornPomo Early Learning Center, Ali Farajzadeh and Leila Fahimi Safa, submitted a civil law claim against the franchise of the Acorn Education Group (AEMG), its founder Navid Morawej, Amin Eskooch and a network of companies and people.
The married couple, who had recently emigrated from Iran – claimed that a group of business people were misleaded and exploited with the construction and management of the proposed day care center.
Other parties named in the lawsuit are Aultrust Financial, which was co -founded by Morawej and Eskooch; The contractor Civilteck Engineering and his owner Kazem Eskooch, father's father; Emcan Consulting Group and her director Farzaneh Hassani Nejad, mother's mother; and 1443120 BC Ltd., a holding company of Eskooch.
Port Moody Council enthusiastically approved the project in July 2024, which offers 36 children in a modular facility for space. Several council members said that the city urgently needed more times.
But the opening of the daycare project has stalled since then.
Fred Soofi-a known former lawyer for restaurateurs, volunteer and Heritage-owned the free, 8,700 square meter plot of land on the corner of St. Johns Street. And Hugh Street and had leased to AEMG, hoping to see more daycare centers in the community.
He said it was worrying to hear about the legal problems.
“I'm really disappointed,” said Soofi. “You said you would open it last September.”
Morawej informed the shipping that the future of the daycare center was not doubtful and is still planning to open as soon as the “legal problems” are solved.
“We will have everything into operation within a few months later – we have set up everything,” said Morawej. “Under no circumstances will we have no daycare center there.”
Civil claim
In the civil lawsuit, Farajzadeh and Safa claimed that the defendants had caused them unfairly “improvisations” contracts, incorrectly managed the build, locked them out of business documents and spread falsehoods that blocked their efforts to move.
They asked the court to invalidate the contracts too invalid, the awarding of damages due to violation of trust obligation, incorrect presentation and defamation as well as the granting of systems for the protection of the portable facility and other property on the premises.
The couple claimed that it was first associated with the project in 2023 by Nejad, their immigration consultant, and it was announced that the business company would make their way easier to stay. They stated that Nejad later announced confidential and personal information about their finances and their background.
Based on Nejad's recommendation, Farajzadeh and Safa met with Morawej and Eskooch, who, according to the suit, were able to build and start as an experienced daycare center operator.
The couple claims that the project is relatively risky, “light” with approval licenses and benefits “significantly”.
After months of discussion in Farsi, the couple signed two English-language contracts in December 2023: a service agreement with Morawejs Acorn Education Management Group and a license agreement with EskOOFS 1443120 BC Ltd.
These contracts are described as “inconceivable” in which the documents have granted the defendants the control and financial advantages, including high fees and punishments. One -sided rights to extend the terms, the franchise company or the purchase of the business “for costs”; broad immunities and compensation; Security about their property; one -sided restrictive alliances; and one -sided termination and assignment powers.
The plaintiffs said they had not received independent legal advice and did not understand the scope or effect of important provisions, including arbitration.
“Mr. Farajzadeh and Ms. Safa were in a position of vulnerability, trust and trust with Mr. Eskooch, Mr. Morawej and Ms. Nejad,” the lawsuit said.
Construction began at the end of 2023, but the lawsuit is claimed that Morawej and Eskooch then signed “expensive” subcontractors with contractors from third -party providers, including Civilteck Engineering Ltd., which was operated by Eskooch's father and Aultrust Financial.
By spring 2024, its promised budget had increased $ 1 million to $ 1.7 million, and the promised opening in September 2024 was not in sight.
On April 23, 2025, the accused allegedly announced without consent to tear down and enlarge the portable in order to increase capacity, and demanded an additional 100,000 US dollars in advance and weekly retainers.
Two weeks later on May 5, Farajzadeh and Safa were declared in arrears, blocked the access to e -mails and records, sent not supported invoices and have securities registered on the website without their knowledge or consent against the portable and other property.
They claim that Nejad then abruptly terminated their services for them, although they were paid over 200,000 US dollars to help with applications and forced them to find a new representation.
When the relationship collapsed, the plaintiffs claimed Morawej and Eskooch to the city of Port Moody and subcontractors had told that the basic lien had been submitted and that the couple owed “significant debts” and that the attempts to distract the building had been undermined.
Reaction and counterclaim
The defendants – Morawej, Eskooch, Nejad 1443120 BC Ltd., AEMG and AULTRUST – have denied all accusations.
In their answer on August 14, Morawej and Eskoch said that they would extend their daycare centers to Port Moody before meeting with the couple, and were clear that management control would always stay with them under the AEMG brand and that the couple of franchise, management and administration fees would pay.
The answer claims that the couple informed them that they were wealthy investors in which the capital “far beyond what was necessary” – the assurances on which the accused were dependent on, but that they would have rely on – that the couple could not finance any important phases of the build later. They also deny that the couple was vulnerable or only had limited English.
The defendants deny that they ever promise an upper limit of $ 1 million or a guaranteed opening on September 30, 2024.
They added that they had asked the couple several times to receive independent legal advice and even set up legal advisors before they carried out the agreements on December 6, 2023.
As part of these contracts, the defendants had the ACORNPOMO website licensed for five years to 7,500 per month, to buy and install the modular facility and to provide the safety interests about the ownership of their company, including the modular.
AEMG was entitled to make binding decisions on the procurement of permits and sub -orders, according to the accused.
On February 12, 2024, AEMG issued an initial capital estimate of $ 1.3 million and later increases this estimate by less than 8 percent, but they ever deny an estimate of $ 1.7 million.
The accused say that the plaintiffs after securing Fraser Health permission in April 2025 to give more capacity to the location.
By June, it is said that almost 105,000 US dollars AEMG and 1443120 BC.
The accused said that they had issued a knowledge of default on May 16, ended the license on June 7th and then registered a security interest on May 14, a commercial lien on July 21 and then instructed the portable on July 22nd.
They deny defamatory statements and argue that they acted with contractual powers at any time in good faith to make binding decisions and enter subordinate.
Morawej, Eskooch and her companies also submitted a counter -action on August 14 and were looking for almost 144,000 US dollars for unpaid license fees, property taxes and acquisition fees. They also sue damage in connection with breach of contract or unjustified enrichment if the contracts are considered incomprehensible.
The defamation is also claimed, and the vendils claims that the plaintiffs informed the city officials, Fraser Health and local parishioners that they are dishonest operators who were set up a “fraudulent agreement” and not entitled to licensing – the AEMG brand.
They also claimed that the plaintiff's pre -contractual incorrect representations caused delays and losses.
“The plaintiffs have dealt with highly handy, malicious, arbitrary or highly incidental misconduct that takes a clear conclusion according to normal behavioral standards,” explains the contrast.
None of the claims of the plaintiff or accused were proven in court.
New prevailing elevators commercial lien
Farajzadeh and Safa found success in the opening salvo of the legal dispute and received the confiscation against their portable Viersteiniged confiscation.
On August 27, the judge of the Supreme Court of BC, Andrew Majawa, decided the commercial lien against her property on the premises.
He emphasized the inconsistency in the liberal of the accused: The company initially argued that over 91,000 US dollars of unpaid license fees from February 2024 were really “warehouse fees”, although the modular daily building was only delivered in March 2025. When combating, the accused changed their position only 22,500 US dollars.
Majawa did not agree and explained that the license and service agreements expressly aim to install and operate a daycare center.
He found that the defendant's proposal that the license fees had a changing character – first for the future use of the property, then for the storage of the building, then back to the business as soon as the day care center was opened – was not covered in any agreement.
“In my opinion, it makes no sense and the agreement does not support the conclusion that the type and purpose of the license fees have changed in this way,” said Majawa. “The business relationship of the parties is described in the provisions of the use of the property for the installation and operation of the business, not for a kind of shift storage of chattels/operation of the business.”
He also believed that even if a lien exists, it had to be argued because the accused had already sparked a security interest in the same property.
The Court of Justice raised the attack, asked for further library claims on the portable and said that the plaintiffs were now free to remove the portable “as soon as possible”.