DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 305/10 and 638/10
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
URAL DIREK, ERTUG DIREKOGLU, KEMAL DIREKOGLU and ELIF DIREKOGLU
Applicants
(Respondents on Motion)
– and –
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO and TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD
Respondents
(Moving Party)
In Person
Josh Hunter, for the Moving Party, the Attorney General of Ontario
Amy Then, for the Attorney General of Ontario, Civil Remedies for Illicit Activities
Amy Murakami, for the Toronto Police Services Board
HEARD at Toronto: October 25, 2011
DAMBROT J. (orally)
Overview
1This is a motion brought by the Attorney General of Ontario for an order prohibiting Ural Direk, Kemal Direkoglu, Ertug Direkoglu and Elif Direkoglu from making further motions in these proceedings in both the Superior Court of Justice and the Divisional Court without leave of a judge, pursuant to Rule 37.16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure together with Rule 61.16(1), which provides that Rule 37.16 applies to motions in an appellate court. Counsel for the Attorney General appropriately referred to such an order as a mini-vexatious litigant order.
Background
2This matter originated with an application brought by the Attorney General for the in rem forfeiture of $229,345.00 and a 2006 Lincoln Mark LT truck as proceeds or instruments of crime pursuant to the Civil Remedies Act. In response, the respondents Ural Direk, Kemal Direkoglu, Ertug Direkoglu and Elif Direkoglu brought a “counter-application” seeking an order quashing the application and other relief, including four billion dollars in monetary compensation.
3The grounds for the application include crimes allegedly committed against the respondents and their family as part of a twenty-one year long “Canadian Judiciary Driven”: gross systematic chain conspiracy, corruption of State, crimes against humanity, incitement of discriminatory hatred, favouratism, obstruction of justice, systematic torture and many other atrocities.
4Since initiating this action, the respondents have initiated an endless string of unsuccessful motions and equally endless efforts to appeal these defeats. In these motions, they recycle nearly identical grounds over and over in an effort to repeatedly litigate matters that have proven unsuccessful. In particular, they have sought to re-litigate their unmeritorious allegation that Stinson J. has a severe conflict of interest and conspired against them and have added the same and additional allegations, including allegations of fraud, forgery, sexual abuse, obstruction of justice, attempt murder and other crimes in an effort to favour “high authoritative” Jewish figures over Turks, Germans and Islamics and to embezzle the futures of the applicants’ children against every Judge who decides any matter against them.
5This is only a tiny introduction to the bizarre, scandalous and vexatious allegations made by the respondent against judges, crown counsel, court officials, the administration of justice generally and the government generally, all, needless to say, without an iota of evidence in support and all in support of an incomprehensible challenge to the forfeiture application.
Legal Principles
6In Lang Michener v. Fabian (1987), 1987 172 (ON SC), 59 O.R. (2d) 353 (H.C.J.), Henry J. outlined a list of principles relating to vexatious proceedings. This decision has been endorsed by many other courts including most recently the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Bishop v. Bishop, 2011 ONCA 211, 2011 O.J. No. 1290. The list reads as follows:
(a) the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious proceeding;
(b) where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious;
(c) vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights;
(d) it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be moved forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings;
(e) in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the Court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action;
(f) the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the cost of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are vexatious; and
(g) the respondent’s conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings.
7These principles apply equally to a Rule 37.16 motion with appropriate alteration, particularly the substitution of the word “motions” for “actions”.
Analysis
8It would be plain to even the most untrained and casual observer that each of these principles has application here. It is entirely unnecessary to recite the details of the many motions brought by the respondent to demonstrate the applicability of these principles. I have no doubt that this multiplicity of frivolous and vexatious motions is brought to delay the proceedings or otherwise abuse the process of the Court.
Order
9As a result, I make the following order:
(i) Ural Direk, Kemal Direkoglu, Ertug Direkoglu and Elif Direkoglu are prohibited from making further motions in their own names or the names of any other person in these proceedings, namely, Divisional Court File #305/10 and #638/10 and Superior Court File #CV-09-386582 or any other or new Divisional Court or Superior Court file in which the same or similar matters are raised without leave;
(ii) That leave may only be sought by Ural Direk, Kemal Direkoglu, Ertug Direkoglu and Elif Direkoglu by written motion and without an oral hearing unless a judge of the Superior Court or Divisional Court orders otherwise;
(iii) That the Registrar of the Superior Court and the Registrar of the Divisional Court are under no circumstances to accept any such motion material from or on behalf of Ural Direk, Kemal Direkoglu, Ertug Direkoglu and Elif Direkoglu other than a written motion for the leave of the Court;
(iv) Costs to the Attorney General of Ontario in the amount of $1,500.00, payable forthwith;
(v) This order shall be issued without the approval of any of Ural Direk, Kemal Direkoglu, Ertug Direkoglu and Elif Direkoglu; and
(vi) This Order shall take effect immediately, and for greater certainty shall be complied with even before it is issued and entered.
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 25, 2011
Date of Release: November 1, 2011
CITATION: Direk v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2011 ONSC 6375
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 305/10 and 638/10
DATE: 20111015
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
DAMBROT J.
BETWEEN:
URAL DIREK, ERTUG DIREKOGLU, KEMAL DIREKOGLU and ELIF DIREKOGLU
Applicants
(Respondents on Motion)
– and –
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO and TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD
Respondents
(Moving Party)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 25, 2011
Date of Release: November 1, 2011