David L. Corbett

This case management endorsement addresses disagreements between the parties regarding the precise wording of a draft interlocutory injunction order.

The court clarifies several points, including that relief not pursued during oral argument (removal of internet publications) will not be included in the order.

It also provides directions on the evidence to be referenced in the preamble and the operative language for continuing interim orders, and sets deadlines for further submissions on unresolved drafting issues.

Nadire Atas requested an urgent case management conference to pursue allegations of judicial bias on motion.

The court determined the request was not urgent and directed that the matter could be raised at the next regularly scheduled case management conference, anticipated for April 2019.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions and provides case management directions for Nadire Atas, who has been declared a vexatious litigant.

The court dismissed Ms. Atas's motion for recusal of the case management judge, finding no merit in her arguments regarding functus officio or apprehended bias.

The court also dismissed Ms. Atas's claims against the Chavalis and her counterclaims in the defamation proceedings due to her persistent failure to make required "Chavali requests" to advance them.

However, the court set aside the notings in default against Ms. Atas in the defamation proceedings to allow her to defend on the merits.

Further directions were given for motions for summary judgment in the defamation proceedings, dismissal motions by Peoples Trust and LawPro Defendants, and an interlocutory injunction motion.

The court emphasized the need for Ms. Atas to comply with case management orders to move the litigation forward, despite her ongoing appeals of the vexatious litigant declaration.

This decision provides reasons for citing Nadire Atas for four incidents of contempt of court and outlines the subsequent sentencing.

The contempt findings relate to repeated improper communications with the court, failure to attend a mandatory case management conference, disrespectful conduct towards the court, and failure to pay court fees or properly obtain a fee waiver.

The court emphasizes the importance of obeying court orders, the finality of judicial decisions, and the proper procedure for raising issues like bias or functus officio.

Sentences included a one-year suspended sentence for improper communications, an absolute discharge for the fee waiver issue (after purging contempt), a six-month conditional sentence for insolence, and a five-day jail sentence for failing to attend court.

The plaintiff commercial landlord sought summary judgment against an indemnifier for unpaid rent and charges under two commercial leases.

The court determined that the landlord's demand for a fee to consent to a change in corporate control, while unreasonable, did not release the indemnifier from their obligations.

The indemnifier was found liable for the tenant's obligations under both leases, subject to specific reductions in the landlord's claimed damages for historic, unbilled expenses.

Andre Hidi appealed his conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The trial judge had found him guilty based on an off-duty police officer's observations of "horrible" driving, an odour of alcohol, and the appellant's testimony of alcohol consumption, despite the exclusion of breathalyzer data.

The appellant raised five grounds of appeal, primarily challenging the trial judge's factual findings, credibility assessments, and the application of legal principles regarding evidence inconsistent with impairment.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's deference on factual findings and credibility, and clarifying the interpretation of "horrible driving" in conjunction with other evidence to infer impairment, particularly distinguishing and adopting the analysis in *R. v. Kumric* over *R. v. Singh*.

Nadire Atas, a litigant previously declared vexatious, sought fee waivers for four ongoing defamation proceedings.

The court denied her request, reiterating that she failed to provide proper evidence of financial need or demonstrate that waiving fees would serve the interests of justice, as required by previous judicial directions.

The court noted her continued vexatious conduct and dismissed the request without prejudice, conditional on her paying the filing fee for the current motion.

This endorsement addresses multiple ongoing civil procedure matters involving Nadire Atas, including her motion to set aside notings in default, the plaintiffs' motions for interlocutory injunctions and summary judgment in defamation actions, and contempt proceedings against Ms. Atas.

The court provided scheduling orders, clarified Ms. Atas's obligations regarding her motion to set aside default, and addressed her non-compliance with court orders, leading to a finding of civil contempt.

The court also discussed Ms. Atas's attempts to obtain transcripts and seek stays of proceedings in the Court of Appeal, emphasizing the distinct nature of the contempt finding from her prior appeal.

The defendant, Nadire Atas, sought an extension of time to bring a motion to set aside a noting in default in defamation proceedings.

The court denied the request, emphasizing that while the defendant was not precluded from bringing such a motion later, her continuing delay could prejudice any subsequent motion.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that an appeal deadline in the Court of Appeal justified further delay in the Superior Court, noting that the defendant had not raised this conflict with the Court of Appeal judge.

The court found that the plaintiffs had been prejudiced by the ongoing delays.

This endorsement addresses costs for a s.140 application and ongoing case management issues.

The respondent, Nadire Atas, repeatedly defied court orders to attend a case management conference and file pleadings, leading to a bench warrant for her arrest and her being taken into custody.

The court noted Ms. Atas in default in three defamation proceedings due to her non-compliance and provided directions for default judgment motions.

For the s.140 application, the court awarded $240,000 in full indemnity costs to the successful applicants (LawPro respondents, Peoples Trust, Chahals), a figure that included a substantial discount to account for multiple counsel representing parties with the same interest.

The court also emphasized its firm stance on litigant defiance, indicating that such conduct would lead to contempt proceedings.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a s.140 application where Nadire Atas was declared a vexatious litigant.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the successful applicants (Plaintiffs, Peoples Trust, Chahals, Lawpro) due to Atas's vexatious conduct both leading to and during the s.140 application.

The court also addressed Atas's continued improper communications and defiance of court orders, ordering her to attend an upcoming case management conference to explain her conduct.

The quantum of costs was reserved for further submissions, particularly regarding the appropriateness of three sets of counsel and overall proportionality.

The court issued a second supplementary judgment addressing the applicant's request for a spousal rollover of an RRSP and the question of costs.

The court dismissed the spousal rollover request, finding it had been substantially complied with through payments into a joint account for shared expenses.

On costs, the respondent was deemed to have prevailed overall, having beaten his offers to settle.

The court awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs throughout and substantial indemnity costs from the date of his offer, with adjustments for the applicant's successful defense of a misconceived breach of fiduciary duty claim and shared costs for an expert income report.

This case management endorsement addresses ongoing non-compliance by the self-represented respondent, Nadire Atas, regarding improper communications and missed deadlines across multiple related proceedings.

The court reiterates various deadlines for costs submissions, responses to HRTO findings, mortgage enforcement costs, filing of statements of defence and counterclaims in defamation actions, and materials for an interlocutory injunction motion.

The endorsement also sets deadlines for "Chavali requests" to re-open predicate litigation and clarifies the process for other outstanding claims.

This case management endorsement addresses multiple procedural issues in complex litigation involving a litigant previously declared vexatious by the HRTO.

The court denied the litigant's last-minute adjournment request, clarified requirements for fee waivers, and rejected a request to bring a stand-alone motion for recusal, directing that bias allegations be raised within an existing interlocutory injunction motion.

The endorsement also set strict deadlines for the litigant's compliance with previous orders and responding materials, emphasizing the court's role in preventing vexatious conduct and ensuring proportional and reasonable litigation.

The Crown applied for forfeiture of an $81,000 bail surety pledged by the respondent, Cassidy Phillips, after her father, the accused, absconded shortly after being released on bail.

The respondent acknowledged the breach but sought a reduction, arguing she was manipulated and had acted diligently as a surety by reporting her father's disappearance.

The court considered the overarching principle of maintaining the proper functioning of the bail system and the seriousness of the breach, while also acknowledging the respondent's good faith efforts.

The court ordered a forfeiture of $60,000, representing a 25% reduction from the pledged amount.

The self-represented litigant, Ms. Atas, improperly corresponded with the Regional Senior Justice and the case management judge, seeking the judge's recusal.

The court reiterated that such correspondence is improper and that a motion for recusal must be brought formally, on notice, with proper evidentiary foundation, and through the case management process.

The court also reminded Ms. Atas to adhere to previous directions regarding communication with the court.

This endorsement addresses a request from the self-represented respondent, Ms. Atas, to reschedule a case management conference due to a conflicting deadline for perfecting her appeal.

The court found no sufficient reason to reschedule, noting that the appeal deadline did not preclude her attendance or completion of appeal work.

The case management conference was ordered to proceed as scheduled, with an accommodation for Ms. Atas to file her appeal materials if needed.

The court issued a chambers endorsement in ongoing proceedings involving Nadire Atas, directing her to raise concerns and bring motions through formal channels, specifically case management conferences or the established Chavali process.

The court reiterated that it would not respond to informal correspondence or demands, including requests for recusal, made outside these formal procedures.

This endorsement provides procedural directions for a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction.

The court sets a firm deadline for the self-represented respondent to file her response to the plaintiffs' position, noting that an earlier informal deadline was missed.

The interim injunction remains in effect pending the hearing of the interlocutory injunction motion.

This endorsement addresses three procedural matters raised by Ms. Atas via correspondence.

The court clarifies that a costs decision on a s.140 application will be released later in the summer, advises that an appeal can be perfected on the existing record, confirms an order setting aside a noting in default has been signed, and directs that issues regarding personal property disposal should be raised at the next case conference, not through correspondence.