Gary Michael Caplan

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.

In a case management endorsement, the court clarified that one of the actions involving the Chahals had already been dismissed, negating the need for a separate order.

The court also approved a draft order prepared by counsel for Mr. Sloan, rejecting the self-represented defendant's draft as a continuation of her contemptuous response to a previous order.

The deadline for submitting agenda items for the upcoming case management conference was extended.

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.

The appellants appealed a vexatious litigant declaration made under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellants challenged the application judge's jurisdiction to hear the vexatious litigant application while serving as case management judge, the finding that they had acted vexatiously in defending proceedings, and the terms of the pre-screening Chavali order imposed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the declaration and all related orders, finding no jurisdictional error, no error in the assessment of evidence, and no abuse of discretion in the costs awards.

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.

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.

The self-represented moving party, previously declared a vexatious litigant, was found in contempt of court and sentenced to a brief period of incarceration.

She sought to appeal the contempt finding but was advised by the Court of Appeal that she required permission from the Superior Court.

The case management judge granted her permission to appeal the contempt finding and custodial sentence, dispensing with the requirement to apply for leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, noting that her liberty interest was engaged and the appearance of justice required she be permitted to appeal.

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 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 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 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.