Christina J. Wallis

The moving party, a declared vexatious litigant, emailed the court requesting directions to schedule a motion to set aside the vexatious litigant judgment.

The court noted that the judgment prohibits the moving party from instituting any motion without leave under s. 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act, which must be obtained from the case management judge.

The court appointed Justice W. S. Chalmers as the Case Management Judge and directed the moving party to make any requests to him.

The plaintiffs were awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis for two motions heard on January 23, 2020.

The defendants' motion to discharge a Mareva injunction was largely unsuccessful, while the plaintiffs' contempt motion was adjourned but found reasonable.

The court considered the importance of the matter to the plaintiffs, the defendants' deficient materials, and the principle of proportionality, fixing costs at $5,610.71.

The plaintiffs obtained a Mareva injunction after advancing $139,000 to the defendants to rebuild their fire-destroyed home.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants misappropriated the funds, performed no work, and submitted forged engineering plans to the municipality.

The defendants brought a motion to discharge the injunction, while the plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt.

The court dismissed the motion to discharge, finding a strong prima facie case of fraud and risk of dissipation of assets, but varied the order to allow the defendants to receive deposits and post security.

The contempt motion was adjourned pending cross-examinations.

The appellant, who had been declared a vexatious litigant in January 2018, sought a review of a motion judge's decision dismissing her motion for a stay of the vexatious litigant judgment pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding that the appellant failed to meet the test for a stay under RJR-MacDonald on multiple occasions and failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

In the context of numerous proceedings involving a vexatious litigant, the respondent sought the recusal of the case management judge and failed to comply with previous court directions, citing an intention to appeal.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction, noted that the judgment is not stayed pending appeal without a specific order from the Court of Appeal, and directed the respondent to comply with the required materials by a final deadline, failing which the underlying litigation would proceed based on her non-compliance.

The plaintiff employee brought a motion for summary judgment seeking determination of the reasonable notice period following termination without cause.

The employer had provided two weeks’ pay pursuant to a termination clause that both parties agreed was unenforceable.

Applying the Bardal factors, the court considered the employee’s age, short service of approximately 51 weeks, technical qualifications, management-level responsibilities, and mitigation efforts.

The court also evaluated the availability of comparable employment within the regional IT labour market.

Balancing these factors, the court determined that a reasonable notice period was four months and granted summary judgment for the employee.

The defendants brought motions in two mortgage enforcement proceedings seeking broad relief including setting aside a prior summary judgment, vacating writs of execution and notices of garnishment, and reopening mortgage accounting.

At the hearing, newly retained counsel for the defendants sought an adjournment after acknowledging that the motion materials were unfocused and procedurally unsuitable for many of the issues raised.

The court granted an adjournment in order to narrow the issues, limiting any future motion to whether the mortgage judgment had been satisfied and whether enforcement steps such as writs and garnishments should be lifted.

A related motion in a second mortgage matter was also adjourned, with the court observing that the issues were more appropriately addressed through the mortgage costs assessment process.

Costs were awarded against the moving parties for the unnecessary expense caused by their broad motion materials and subsequent adjournment request.