COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-010594400
DATE: 20120727
CORRIGENDA: 20120731
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Marlien Aziz, Applicant
AND:
Nagy Riad, Respondent
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice P.D. Lauwers
COUNSEL:
David A. Weisman, for the Applicant
Nagy Riad, on his own behalf
HEARD: July 26, 2012
REVISED ENDORSEMENT
The text of the original ruling has been corrected with the text of corrigendum (released today’s date)
[1] In the Notice of Motion Mr. Riad sought to set aside the ruling of Salmers J., dated February 7, 2012, by which he was effectively found to be a vexatious litigant; the Order provided: “that no further proceedings be instituted by the Respondent in any court, except with leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.”
[2] Mr. Nagy also seeks leave to proceed with a number of cases, identified below:
To have This Honourable Court grant a leave to the Applicant to proceed with his VERY OUTASTANDING Courts’s CASES that are STILL BEFORE THE COURTS AND MUST BE CONCLUDED BY THE COURTS. In particular: Court File Numbers: 357/11 (Divisional Court-Toronto [It is actually a Newmarket file.]), File # FC-22844-00/01/02/03/ Family Division in Newmarket Court. File # 449/11 Divisional Court-Toronto, a non-relevant matter to the Applicant’s wife, Mrs. Aziz, File # DC-000137 Civil matter, File # CV-07-082789, File # CV-10-00397881, CIVIL-TORONTO, File # 218-11 Divisional Court-Toronto (moved to 357/11 DC-T), SEVERAL APPLICATIONS AND MOTIONS to remove the Applicant’s wife counsel, Mr. David Areih Weisman (whom the LSUC FOUND HIM GUILTY OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT FOR ACTING FOR BOTH The Applicant and the Respondent for four and a half years, then taking and pitting the Respondent against her HUSBAND, the applicant for more than six and a half years !!!!!!!, also Removal of his legal firm, OKELL & WEISMAN as solicitors of record on behalf of the Applicant’s wife, the respondent, which is a MUST as I was told by the LSUC and also the Chief Justice, Hon. Justice Warren Winkler, in 2011), In addition to ANY COURT FILE THAT IS NOT RELEVANT to The Applicant’s wife, EXCEPT HER CRIMINAL COURT FILE # 09-11539 Newmarket court, and other criminal courts in Ontario). [sic]
[3] Mr. Riad felt compelled to add this ground of relief because of the second paragraph of the Order of Salmers J., states that: “Any proceedings, previously instituted by the Respondent in any court not be continued, except with leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice.”
[4] The motion came before Glass J. on June 13, 2012, who found the motion material deficient. He instructed Mr. Riad to serve and file a new motion record with supporting material by June 28, 2012 and obliged Ms. Aziz to serve and file responding material by July 6, 2012. Glass J.’s endorsement said: “It appears that Mr. Riad wants to apply for an order permitting him to take further proceedings.”
[5] Glass J. advised Mr. Riad that an appeal to the Court of Appeal might take longer than a simple motion to set aside the order of Salmers J. and that the Court might just send him back to Newmarket to move to set aside that order. Mr. Riad did not hear that advice; instead he heard that one Superior Court judge cannot set aside the order of another. Accordingly, with respect to the first ground of relief, Mr. Riad advised that he has appealed the decision of Salmers J. to the Court of Appeal and was not prepared to pursue that relief before me.
[6] The second ground for relief is troublesome. Since the appeal of Justice Salmers’ order relates to both grounds, it seems to me that it too is properly before the Court of Appeal. Mr. Riad insists, however, that the matters listed require urgent disposition and asks for leave to carry on with all of them to avoid the need to come back many times.
Discussion
[7] Despite the collective efforts of many judges in Newmarket and Toronto, the court has been unsuccessful in imposing any order on Mr. Riad’s conduct. Without reciting all of the decisions, the nub of them is that the ongoing issues that he has with his former wife are all fully engaged in the Family Court file, now consolidated in FC-05-22844-02, by Order of McGee J., dated February 12, 2010. She ordered that Mr. Riad not be permitted to file further motions until he paid the outstanding costs orders.
[8] This is Mr. Riad’s third attendance before me. On February 23, 2010, I directed that his civil action, CV-07-082789-00, in Newmarket be stayed and that no further proceedings be taken in respect of the action on the basis that the same issues were alive in the consolidated Family Court matter. I added: “Perhaps Mr. Riad is approaching the status of a vexatious litigant.” That was before a plethora of further proceedings.
[9] On March 17, 2010, Mr. Riad appeared before Mullins J. She dismissed his request for leave to appeal McGee J.’s decision to the Divisional Court in file number DC-00137 and held: “No material shall be accepted from Mr. Riad until he has complied with McGee J.’s Order and until reviewed by me as judge ready.”
[10] In McGee J’s next decision in the consolidated Family Court matter, dated March 28, 2011, she stated:
I am staying this action, as set out in my hand-written endorsement of March 23, 2011. My prior Order of February 12, 2010 remains in full force and effect, inclusive of the provision that Mr. Riad may not file a motion until the costs awards are paid in full.
No further conference date may be scheduled by Mr. Riad without my approval and proof of payment of the outstanding costs….
[11] On February 15, 2011, while sitting as a judge of the Divisional Court, I gave Mr. Riad thirty days within which to file motion material necessary to seek leave to appeal the decision of McGee J.
[12] By endorsement dated March 31, 2011 in the Divisional Court matter, Mullins J. noted that Mr. Riad was not present for unknown reasons. Her endorsement provided: “Court staff will not give Mr. Riad any motion dates until he has complied with the requirement to pay $1,450.00 to Mr. Weisman, In Trust, and file proof with a written receipt from Mr. Weisman, as per Lauwers J.”
[13] Mr. Riad ultimately did not proceed with the motion for leave to appeal the Order of McGee J. to the Divisional Court, although in this notice of motion he apparently is seeking to revive it despite long inactivity.
[14] Mr. Riad has steadfastly failed or refused to pay any costs awards and has consequently been unable to proceed with the family action. He instead launched civil proceedings instead and both family and civil proceedings in Toronto. The consumption of scarce court resources has been staggering, not to mention the burden that he has cast on his former spouse, Ms. Aziz. Much of the additional sorry record of proceedings is set out in the decision of Strathy J., dated April 21, 2011.
[15] Regrettably, Mr. Riad seems unable to accept that his family life has irrevocably changed. There appear to be two constants in his perseverating approach. The first is that he does not accept the legitimacy of any court decisions, including the custody and access decision of July 19, 2006 which gave him no access to his then minor children, and the divorce order dated September 26, 2006. He passionately proclaims that he is still married “to this day” and harbours the belief that one day, once all the injustices perpetrated against him have been undone, the family will resume an idyllic life. This belief is completely unrealistic.
[16] The second is Mr. Riad’s obsessive hatred of Mr. Weisman, counsel for Ms. Aziz, whom he blames for much of his trouble. There are a number of court decisions in which his request to have Mr. Weisman removed as counsel of record have been dismissed, but he angrily persists in that approach, as he did before me today.
[17] Mr. Riad is also hounding Mr. Weisman through complaints to the Law Society of Upper Canada. He asserts that his many complaints have not been determined, and that Mr. Weisman has been found guilty by the Law Society of professional misconduct based on his alleged oral discussions with Law Society counsel. There is no evidence to support these assertions. Mr. Riad provided a copy of a new complaint to the Law Society, dated June 30, 2012, arising out of Mr. Weisman’s appearance before Salmers J. Mr. Riad threatened Mr. Weisman with yet another complaint concerning his conduct in responding to this motion.
[18] Mr. Weisman’s Applicant’s Motion Record, filed July 13, 2002, contains a letter from A. Hershel Gross, the manager of the Complaints Resolution for Law Society of Upper Canada. It notes that Mr. Riad’s complaints in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010 have all been treated the same way: “The Law Society has not responded to [Mr. Riad] since the material and information provided by him after the file was closed does not raise new regulatory issues or otherwise support further regulatory proceedings. I trust that this letter will assist you in understanding what has occurred since this file was closed in July 2006.”
[19] As matters now stand, and subject to the decision of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Riad has an avenue by which he can pursue his grievances, which is through the Family Court proceedings in Newmarket, provided that he pays the outstanding costs awards.
[20] Because Mr. Riad has demonstrated that he is both unreasonable and completely ungovernable, I refuse leave to permit him to pursue the other proceedings listed in his Notice of Motion while his appeal of the order of Salmers J. is pending in the Court of Appeal.
[21] Ms. Aziz has been successful and Mr. Weisman seeks costs in the amount of $1,500.00 for today’s motion. Mr. Riad sought $3,000.00 if he was successful. I find Mr. Weisman’s request to be reasonable and order Mr. Riad to pay costs in the amount of $1,500.00 to Mr. Weisman’s office within 30 days of the date of the decision.
[22] Mr. Riad requested that my decision be mailed to him at P.O. Box 243, Station Don Mills, North York, ON, M3C 2S2. I note that this address is precisely the address for service specified by Mulligan J. in his decision on Wednesday, October 12, 2011 and the address to which Mr. Weisman has directed all of the material including the material put before Salmers J., which Mr. Riad says that he never received, at least according to the filed affidavit of service.
[23] I note in passing that Mr. Riad mis-represented that the hand-written endorsement of Hoy J. in the Toronto civil action, dated December 17, 2010 as requiring service on Mr. Riad at that post office box by registered mail. I also note in passing that Mr. Riad’s hearing impairment was successfully accommodated by the equipment in court today, as he acknowledged.
Justice P.D. Lauwers
Date: July 31, 2012
CORRIGENDA
In paragraph 7, line 3, “decision” changed to “decisions”.
In paragraph 8, line 2, “proceeding” changed to “proceedings”.
In paragraph 10, line 1, “Magee J.” changed to “McGee J.”.
In paragraph 14, line 2, added word “been”.