David L. Corbett

Following dismissal of two civil actions, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs and the self-represented plaintiff opposed the amounts and requested that costs be reserved to the Court of Appeal.

The court rejected reserving costs as contrary to established practice, accepted that costs must remain fair, reasonable, and proportionate, and declined reductions based on self-representation alone.

The court allowed a limited objection for case-management-related costs and declined costs thrown away on a prior adjournment, while otherwise finding the defendants’ summary judgment litigation approach reasonable.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $45,000 plus HST for the first action and $2,500 plus HST for the second action, payable within 30 days.

This case management endorsement addresses an appeal by a self-represented tenant against an eviction order, where the tenant had not paid rent for two years, claiming the unit was uninhabitable.

The court balanced the interests of the parties, allowing the landlord to re-enter and take possession of the unit, while providing the tenant a deadline to remove personal property.

The landlord was prohibited from re-leasing the premises pending further court order, and a future case management teleconference was scheduled to set a schedule for the appeal and consider interim payments or re-leasing restrictions.

The court clarified that the tenant's intention to seek a review or stay did not automatically stay the order.

The Appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board which found him incapable of consenting or refusing to consent to antipsychotic medication.

The central issue was the second branch of the capacity test under the Health Care Consent Act, specifically whether the Appellant could "appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences" of his decision, given his delusional beliefs about environmental afflictions and the effects of medication.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that capacity requires an objectively reasonable appreciation of risks and benefits, not one rooted in delusions, even for an intellectually capable individual.

Nadire Atas sought permission to appeal a court decision (2020 ONSC 3471) that denied her application to rescind a judgment (2018 ONSC 58) declaring her a vexatious litigant.

The court found that her request for permission to appeal was itself vexatious and denied it, stating she had not identified an appealable issue.

This case management endorsement addresses procedural issues arising from a request by Concerned Citizens of North Stormont to discuss a possible recusal motion.

The court clarifies that allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias should be raised at the earliest opportunity, with counsel's knowledge being relevant.

It also discusses the court's jurisdiction to issue a Rule 2.1 notice in such circumstances and acknowledges the role of ongoing settlement discussions.

This is a case management endorsement providing procedural directions for an appeal from an interlocutory order.

The endorsement sets out the schedule for the appeal hearing, which will be conducted as a video conference, and details requirements for electronic document submission, including formatting, hyperlinking authorities, and preparing compendiums.

It also reminds counsel to address costs in advance.

Nadire Atas, a self-represented litigant involved in various proceedings, brought an ex parte motion seeking to re-open four motions that were under reserve.

The court dismissed the ex parte motion, reiterating that such motions require notice to other parties and that Ms. Atas must follow established procedures for requesting a case management conference or seeking leave to bring motions, as previously directed.

The court noted its limited capacity during the COVID-19 suspension of ordinary operations.

The accused, Andrew Bond, was found guilty of possession of cocaine for trafficking and illegal possession of a loaded semi-automatic handgun.

This judgment addresses three Charter applications made by the defence during the trial: (1) exclusion of evidence obtained via search warrants based on confidential informants, (2) exclusion of evidence obtained through warrantless cellphone "pinging," and (3) a breach of the right to counsel due to delayed access.

The court upheld the search warrants after a Garofoli analysis, found that the "pinging" was justified by exigent circumstances (or that the evidence would not be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter), and determined that the delay in access to counsel did not constitute an infringement or cause actual prejudice.

All defence applications to exclude evidence were denied.

This endorsement finalized 14 dismissal orders and one additional order arising from a case management conference.

The respondent, Nadire Atas, submitted improper and vexatious comments on the draft orders, repeatedly challenging the orders themselves or alleging judicial bias, rather than addressing their form.

The court signed 13 draft orders based on the moving party's submissions, with directions for resolving minor issues on the remaining orders.

The court also issued orders to manage the respondent's improper communications to counsel, directing counsel not to act as a conduit for vexatious arguments.

Further directions were given to the respondent regarding her failure to provide transcript status for a contempt appeal and failure to file a defence in another action, with warnings of potential contempt for non-compliance.

The court addressed Nadire Atas's non-compliance with a direction to provide blacklined draft orders and explanations for orders made at a case management conference.

Instead of complying, Atas submitted arguments contesting the orders and making allegations of bias, which the court deemed vexatious and defiant.

The court finalized the orders based on the drafts prepared by the moving party, Gary Caplan, and issued strict warnings to Atas regarding improper communications and re-litigating decided issues during the order settlement process.

The court also followed up on a delay in the release of transcripts.

This endorsement addresses a dispute over the form and content of orders prepared to implement prior dismissal orders made at a case management conference.

The self-represented respondent, Ms. Atas, raised vexatious arguments contesting the prior dismissal orders and asserting a lack of jurisdiction.

The court found her submissions irrelevant and vexatious, noting her consistent pattern of making procedural matters cumbersome.

The court refused to revisit the merits of the dismissal orders and directed Ms. Atas to provide properly blacklined draft orders with explanations by a tight deadline if she had legitimate concerns about the form and content, otherwise the orders would issue as granted.

This case management endorsement addresses multiple ongoing proceedings involving a vexatious litigant, Nadire Atas.

The court made several orders and directions, including confirming the open court principle for case management conferences, dismissing numerous actions against Peoples Trust and other defendants due to the litigant's failure to comply with "Chavali requests" (orders to demonstrate intent to continue litigation), and setting deadlines for filing defence and bringing a motion for a stay of summary judgment proceedings.

The court also addressed the litigant's repeated allegations of bias and jurisdictional challenges, dismissing them as meritless and vexatious.

Directions were given regarding outstanding costs orders and the process for appealing interlocutory rulings.

This case management endorsement records the signing of an order dismissing the outstanding litigation against the Chahals, in accordance with a prior endorsement.

This endorsement summarizes case management events and provides directions for ongoing litigation involving Nadire Atas, who was previously declared a vexatious litigant.

The court addresses Ms. Atas's non-compliance with prior orders, her attempts to re-open concluded cases, and her allegations of bias and constitutional questions.

It outlines the status of various claims against and by Ms. Atas, including pending dismissal and summary judgment motions.

The court emphasizes the need for Ms. Atas to comply with court procedures and cautions her against continued vexatious conduct, while also setting an agenda for an upcoming case management conference.

This case management endorsement addresses several procedural matters in ongoing proceedings, primarily involving Caplan et al. and Nadire Atas.

The court finalized orders dismissing counterclaims asserted by Ms. Atas in defamation proceedings and dismissed all claims by Ms. Atas and her company against Krishan and Nutan Chahal.

Additionally, David Baker's small claims court action against Ms. Atas, including her counterclaim, was dismissed.

The court also signed an order for the trials in the three defamation actions to be heard together, clarifying the operative parts of the order.

Instructions were provided for counsel to draft and pick up corrected orders.

Ms. Atas, a litigant in numerous proceedings, improperly communicated directly with the court via email, requesting a stay of a prior s. 140 judgment pending an appeal, without a formal motion, notice to other parties, or evidence.

The court noted that Ms. Atas had been repeatedly warned against such communications and had previously apologized for similar conduct.

The court deemed the communication wholly improper and ordered that at the next case management conference, a date would be set for Ms. Atas to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt of court.

This case management endorsement sets the date for the next conference, outlines procedures for adding agenda items, and provides a timeline for future conferences.

It also confirms the dismissal of proceedings against specific parties (the Chahals).

Nadire Atas sought two further orders in a s.140 application, which had already been merged into a February 2018 judgment and previously denied.

An urgent case management conference was held on March 26, 2019, at Ms. Atas's insistence, to address these requests.

The court found Ms. Atas's assertions about prior events to be false and her conduct vexatious, as she failed to adequately prepare and relitigated decided issues.

The court awarded costs of $1,000 to Gary Caplan's clients, payable by Ms. Atas, as an indemnity for the expense incurred due to her actions.

The court addressed a procedural dispute concerning the issuance of two orders and the scheduling of a case management conference.

The self-represented respondent initially requested urgent orders for an appeal but subsequently resisted the scheduled conference.

The court affirmed that the conference would proceed as scheduled, emphasizing the impropriety of a party unilaterally expressing disagreement with a judicial decision regarding a conference.

The respondent, Nadire Atas, made a request for an urgent case conference to address issues of bias and constitutional questions.

The court denied the request, directing that these matters be raised at the next scheduled case management conference in April 2019.