The plaintiff sought an appointment to settle orders from previous motions after the self-represented defendant refused to approve the draft order.
The defendant argued that the settlement of the orders should be stayed because she had subsequently filed an anti-SLAPP motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, which stays 'further steps' in the proceeding.
The court held that settling an order reflecting a previously released decision is not a 'further step' and does not frustrate the purpose of the anti-SLAPP provisions.
The court also declined to reconsider its previous decisions under Rule 2.01 and ordered the plaintiff to prepare three separate orders for the three separate endorsements.
