Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether the defendant Mr. Amiri signed the loan agreement or if his signature was forged.

• Determination of the enforceability of the indemnity clause in the loan agreement.

• Credibility assessment of contradictory witness testimonies from Mr. Amiri and Mr. Mohajer.

• Use and reliability of expert handwriting analysis to determine the authenticity of the signatures.

• Whether Mr. Amiri’s presence in the office on the signing date was plausible, based on travel evidence.

• Impact of late disclosure of a second loan document copy on the court’s evidentiary conclusions.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and parties involved

This case arose from a loan dispute between Keivan Beigi (plaintiff) and the corporate and individual defendants: FMS Medical Systems Ltd., Abouzar Amiri, and Payman Mohajer. Mr. Beigi had advanced a loan of $133,000 to FMS in 2018, secured by a written loan agreement that appeared to bear the signatures of both Mr. Mohajer and Mr. Amiri, who were equal shareholders and principals of FMS at the time. The agreement also included a personal indemnity clause.

FMS defaulted on repayment, and Mr. Beigi obtained a default judgment against the company. He then pursued Mr. Amiri and Mr. Mohajer personally under the indemnity clause. Mr. Mohajer admitted signing and witnessing Mr. Amiri’s signature but Mr. Amiri denied ever signing the agreement or authorizing the loan, asserting that his signature had been forged.

Key issues and witness credibility

The central issue was whether Mr. Amiri actually signed the loan agreement. Mr. Amiri and Mr. Mohajer offered directly opposing accounts of the events surrounding the signing. The court undertook a detailed credibility assessment of the witnesses and found Mr. Amiri to be credible and forthright, noting his willingness to make admissions against his own interest. In contrast, the court found Mr. Mohajer to be evasive, inconsistent, and self-serving in his testimony.

Additional evidence showed Mr. Amiri was traveling to Salt Spring Island on the date in question, which made it improbable that he could have been present at the office to sign the agreement. GPS data, ferry schedules, and Mr. Amiri’s appointment records supported this alibi.

Expert evidence on handwriting

Both parties retained forensic handwriting experts to analyze the authenticity of Mr. Amiri’s signature and initials on the loan documents. Mr. Beigi’s expert concluded the signatures were genuine, but the court found this analysis flawed and lacking neutrality. In contrast, Mr. Amiri’s expert identified numerous irregularities in the documents, including inconsistencies in pen pressure, use of multiple printers, signs of document alteration, and possible simulated handwriting. The court found this expert’s opinion more persuasive and accepted the conclusion that Mr. Amiri’s signature was forged.

The loan agreement and its enforceability

The court concluded that Mr. Amiri never signed the loan agreement and therefore could not be bound by its terms, including the indemnity clause. Mr. Mohajer, who admitted signing the agreement and remained closely aligned with Mr. Beigi throughout the dispute, was found liable under the indemnity. The court noted that Mr. Beigi’s decision to pursue Mr. Amiri more aggressively than Mr. Mohajer—despite the latter's admission of liability—appeared motivated by personal animus rather than a purely financial interest.

Judgment and outcome

The court dismissed the action against Mr. Amiri, finding he was not liable under the indemnity. However, judgment was granted against Mr. Mohajer in the amount of $151,895.16, plus interest, reflecting the debt owed by FMS. Costs were not determined in the ruling, and the parties were invited to return to court if they could not reach agreement on that issue.

Ultimately, Mr. Amiri prevailed, and the plaintiff succeeded only in part by securing judgment against Mr. Mohajer.