Patrick Penner, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Tri-Cities Dispatch

An anticipated Port Moody daycare project has spiralled into a courtroom battle with duelling narratives, contract fights and defamation claims. 

On July 15, Acornpomo Early Learning Center owners Ali Farajzadeh and Leila Fahimi Safa filed a civil claim against the Acorn Education Management Group (AEMG) franchise, its founder Navid Morawej, Amin Eskooch, and a network of companies and individuals related to them.

The married couple – who recently immigrated from Iran – alleged that they were misled and exploited by a group of businesspeople tied to the construction and management of the proposed daycare.

Other parties named in the lawsuit include Aultrust Financial, which was co-founded by Morawej and Eskooch; the contractor CivilTeck Engineering and its owner Kazem Eskooch, Eskooch’s father; Emcan Consulting Group and its director, Farzaneh Hassani Nejad, Eskooch’s mother; and 1443120 B.C. LTD., a holding company owned by Eskooch.

Port Moody council had enthusiastically approved a temporary-use permit for the project in July 2024, which would have provided space for 36 kids in a modular facility, with several councillors stating the city was in dire need of more daycares.

But the opening of the daycare project has since stalled.

Fred Soofi – a well-known local former restaurateur, volunteer and heritage advocate – owns the vacant, 8,700 square foot lot located on the corner of St. Johns Street and Hugh Street, and had leased it to AEMG in hopes of seeing more daycare space in the community. 

He said it was troubling to hear of the legal troubles.

“I’m really disappointed,” Soofi said. “They said they were going to open it last September.”

Morawej told the Dispatch that the future of the daycare is not in doubt and they still plan to open once the “legal issues” are resolved.

“Within a few months after, we will have everything up and running – we have everything set up,” Morawej said. “There’s no way we will not have a daycare there.”

Civil claim

In the civil claim, Farajzadeh and Safa alleged the defendants induced them into unfair “improvident” contracts, mismanaged the build, locked them out of business records, and spread falsehoods that blocked their efforts to relocate.

They asked the court to void the contracts, award damages for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation and defamation, along with the issuance of injunctions to protect the portable facility and other property on the site.

The couple claimed they were first connected with the project in 2023 through Nejad, their immigration consultant, and were told starting the business venture would ease their path to permanent residency. They alleged that Nejad later disclosed confidential and personal information about their finances and background.

Based on Nejad’s recommendation, Farajzadeh and Safa met with Morawej and Eskooch, who portrayed themselves as experienced daycare operators who could build and launch a centre in Port Moody by Sept. 30, 2024, according to the suit. 

The couple claims they were told the project was relatively low-risk, with permits licences “easily” obtained and profits “significant.” 

After months of discussions – conducted largely in Farsi due to their limited English – the couple signed two English-language contracts in December 2023: a service agreement with Morawej’s Acorn Education Management Group, and a licence agreement with Eskooch’s 1443120 B.C. Ltd. 

Those contracts are described as “unconscionable,” alleging the documents granted the defendants sweeping control and financial advantages, including hefty fees and penalties; unilateral rights to extend terms, franchise, or buy the business “at cost”; broad immunities and indemnities; security over their property; one-sided restrictive covenants; and unilateral termination and assignment powers.

The plaintiffs say they did not receive independent legal advice and did not understand the scope or effect of key provisions, including arbitration terms.

“Mr. Farajzadeh and Ms. Safa were in a position of vulnerability, reliance, and trust with Mr. Eskooch, Mr. Morawej, and Ms. Nejad,” the suit states.

Construction began in late 2023, but the suit alleges that Morawej and Eskooch then signed  “expensive” subcontracts with third party contractors, including CivilTeck Engineering Ltd., run by Eskooch’s father and Aultrust Financial.

By spring 2024 their promised $1-million budget had spiked to $1.7 million, and the promised September 2024 opening was not in sight, according to the suit.

On April 23, 2025, the defendants allegedly announced, without consent, plans to demolish and enlarge the portable to increase capacity and demanded an extra $100,000 upfront and weekly retainers. 

Two weeks later on May 5, Farajzadeh and Safa were declared to be in default, blocked access to email and records, sent unsupported invoices, and had securities registered against the portable and other property at the site without their knowledge or consent, according to the suit. 

They claim Nejad then abruptly terminated her services to them, despite having been paid over $200,000 to assist with applications, forcing them to find new representation.

As the relationship broke down, the plaintiffs allege Morawej and Eskooch told the City of Port Moody and subcontractors that liens had been filed and that the couple owed “significant debts,” undermining attempts to relocate the building off the property.

Response and counterclaim

The defendants – Morawej, Eskooch, Nejad 1443120 B.C. Ltd., AEMG and Aultrust – have denied all allegations.

In their Aug. 14 response, Morawej and Eskooch said they were already expanding their daycare operations to Port Moody before meeting the couple, and were clear that management control would always remain with them under the AEMG brand, and that the couple would pay franchise, management and administration fees.

The response alleges the couple told them they were wealthy investors with capital “far in excess” of what was required – assurances the defendants say they relied on – but that the couple later could not fund key phases of the build. They also dispute that the couple were vulnerable or had limited English.

The defendants deny ever promising a $1-million cap or a guaranteed Sept. 30, 2024 opening.

They also added they urged the couple multiple times to get independent legal advice, and even arranged for legal counsel before executing the agreements on December 6, 2023.

Under those contracts, the defendants say Acornpomo licensed the site for five years at $7,500 per month, agreed to buy and install the modular facility, and granted security interests over their company’s property, including the modular.

AEMG was authorized to make binding decisions to procure permits and subcontracts, according to the defendants. 

On costs, they say AEMG issued an initial $1.3 million capital estimate on Feb. 12, 2024, later increasing that estimate by less than 8 percent, but they deny ever presenting a $1.7-million estimate. 

The defendants say after securing Fraser Health approval in April 2025 to add more capacity to the site, the plaintiffs refused to fund it and then defaulted, failing to fund completion, pay subcontractors, and to cover obligations under the agreements.

By June, they say, nearly $105,000 was owed to AEMG and 1443120 B.C. Ltd. in service and licensing fees, property taxes were outstanding, and proper insurance had not been paid.

The defendants say they issued a default notice on May 16, terminated the licence on June 7, then registered a security interest on May 14, a commercial lien on July 21, then directed a bailiff to seize the portable on July 22.

They deny making defamatory statements and argue they acted at all times in good faith with contractual authority to make binding decisions and enter subcontracts.

Morawej, Eskooch and their companies also filed a counterclaim on Aug. 14, seeking nearly $144,000 for unpaid licensing fees, property taxes, and acquisitions fees. They are also suing for damages related to breach of contract, or unjust enrichment if the contracts are deemed unenforceable.

Defamation is also being alleged, with the countersuit claiming the plaintiffs told the city officials, Fraser Health, and local community members that they were dishonest operators who set up a “fraudulent arrangement” and were ineligible for licensing – damaging the AEMG brand.

They further alleged the plaintiffs’ pre-contractual misrepresentations caused delay and losses.

“The plaintiffs have engaged in high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible misconduct that departs to a marked degree from ordinary standards of decent behaviour,” the countersuit states.

None of the plaintiff’s or defendant’s claims have been proven in court.

New ruling lifts commercial lien

Farajzadeh and Safa found success in the opening salvo of the legal battle, getting the seizure notice against their four-unit portable struck down.

On Aug. 27, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Andrew Majawa ruled the commercial lien registered against their property on the site was invalid.

He highlighted the inconsistency in the defendant’s lien claim: the company initially argued that over $91,000 in unpaid licence fees, dating back to February 2024, were really “storage fees,” even though the modular daycare building was not delivered until March 2025. When pressed, the defendants changed their position, stating only $22,500 was owed from March to June 2025.

Majawa flatly disagreed, stating that the licence and services agreements were expressly aimed at installing and operating a daycare.

He noted the defendant’s suggestion that the licensing fees had a changing character – first for future use of the property, then for storage of the building, then back to business operations once the daycare opened – was not covered in any agreement.

“In my view, it does not make sense and the agreement does not support a conclusion that the nature and purpose of the licencing fees changed in this manner,” Majawa said. “The parties’ business relationship is described in the terms of the use of the property for installation and operation of the business, not for some sort of shifting storage of chattels/operation of the business.”

He also held that even if a lien existed, it would be rendered moot as the defendants already had taken a security interest in the same property.

The court lifted the seizure, enjoined further lien claims over the portable, and said the plaintiffs are now free to remove the portables “as soon as reasonably possible.”

Learn more about our News Monitoring here.

---