David L. Corbett

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.

The self-represented defendant requested a decision on her request to bring a stand-alone recusal motion and an emergency case management conference.

The court directed that the recusal issues be brought forward in response to the pending motion for an interlocutory injunction, dismissing the request for a stand-alone motion.

The request for an emergency case management conference was also denied as no urgent issue was raised.

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 defendant emailed the court requesting to reschedule a case management conference set for September 14, 2018, without providing reasons for her unavailability.

The case management judge noted the defendant's repeated failure to follow directions to explain scheduling conflicts, characterizing her conduct as unacceptable passive-aggressive behaviour.

The court ordered the defendant to immediately provide particulars of any prior court commitment or other justification, failing which the conference would proceed as scheduled.

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.

This case management endorsement addresses the status of an interlocutory injunction motion in defamation proceedings.

The court granted an extension to the plaintiffs for providing information regarding the scheduling of their interlocutory injunction motion, accepting counsel's explanation for the delay.

The self-represented defendant's request to summarily set aside the interim injunction was dismissed, as the court noted that extensive evidence had been filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant had not yet served responding materials.

The court also reiterated that a previous s.140 vexatious litigant order against the defendant remains in effect and is not open to debate in this court pending appeal.

Directions were provided for the defendant to propose a timetable for responding to the injunction motion.

This endorsement addresses multiple ongoing proceedings involving Nadire Atas, providing case management directions.

Key issues include Ms. Atas's late filing of an agenda, the transfer of personal property from a storage locker, the continuation of various claims against the Chahals and Sutton Group Realty, the management of three defamation actions (including pleadings, counterclaims, and injunctions), and the resolution of mortgage enforcement costs for Peoples Trust.

The court also addresses collateral attacks on previous judgments and outstanding solicitors' fees.

A significant directive is issued regarding Ms. Atas's access to transcripts, conditional on a payment towards outstanding costs owed to Peoples Trust due to her history of non-payment.

The plaintiff, a promising clarinetist, applied to a prestigious music conservatory and was offered a full scholarship.

The defendant, his girlfriend at the time, intercepted the acceptance email, declined the offer in his name, and sent him a fake rejection email to prevent him from moving away.

The plaintiff sued for deceit and the defendant was noted in default.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarding $300,000 in general damages for loss of educational opportunity and delayed career entry, plus $25,000 in aggravated damages and $25,000 in punitive damages for the defendant's reprehensible conduct.

The plaintiffs and defendants both brought motions to adduce fresh evidence in the context of an ongoing motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, finding that the alleged repetition of the impugned conduct was relevant to assessing the nature of the conduct and the appropriate remedial response in a dynamic marketplace situation.

The court also granted the defendants' motion to adduce fresh evidence, noting that since the plaintiffs were permitted to adduce fresh evidence, the defendants were entitled to adduce further responding evidence.

Costs were reserved to be addressed as part of the costs of the interlocutory injunction motion.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support and related relief.

The respondent cross-moved to dismiss the application for want of jurisdiction, arguing he was a resident of Quebec and not subject to Ontario family law.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding the respondent had resided in Ontario for the last 2.5 years of the relationship.

The court granted partial summary judgment for credit card debt, ordered $250,000 in lump sum interim spousal support, and added the respondent's company as a third party, finding it was his financial alter ego.

The applicants requested an urgent, ex parte case conference and interim relief regarding a fresh proceeding alleging the respondent breached an injunction through a severe internet attack.

The court declined to proceed without notice to the respondent, instead scheduling a mandatory urgent case conference and directing the applicants to serve the respondent with the materials.

The self-represented defendant in an action for a permanent injunction and defamation brought a motion for a further and better affidavit of documents.

She sought a list of all 'Implementation Specialists' engaged by the plaintiffs since January 2012 to obtain evidence regarding working conditions.

The plaintiffs opposed the request on the grounds of relevance, proportionality, and privacy.

The court found the information relevant to the plaintiffs' claim for an injunction restraining the defendant from making statements about working conditions.

To balance the defendant's need for evidence against the risk of disrupting the plaintiffs' business, the court ordered the production of contact information for former workers only.