NEWMARKET

COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-119735-00

DATE: 20140910

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Nagy Riad

Applicant

– and –

Marlien Aziz

Respondent

In Person

David A. Weisman, for the Respondent

HEARD: September 8, 2014

REASONS

EDWARDS J.:

[1] Mr. Riad seeks an order to continue pursuing his outstanding court file 356/11218/11339/10, as well as two matters before the Divisional Court and a matter before the Ontario Professional Review Board. He also seeks an order in the form of a Rescission Order in relation to a judgment of Salmers J. dated February 7, 2012.

[2] When the matter was called on September 8, 2014 Mr. Riad indicated that he had difficulty hearing and sought an adjournment of today’s proceedings. He indicated that the voice enhancement equipment was not working to his satisfaction.

[3] I had an opportunity to observe Mr. Riad and his ability to respond to enquiries from the bench. I allowed Mr. Riad to sit in the witness box adjacent to the court dais. Mr. Riad had no difficulty in understanding and hearing the dialogue between him and myself. I also had Mr. Weisman, counsel for the respondent, stand in front of Mr. Riad so that Mr. Weisman’s submissions could be clearly understood.

[4] At no time with the accommodations that I provided to Mr. Riad did he indicate any difficulty in hearing or understanding the court proceedings. I therefore refused any adjournment of Mr. Riad’s application seeking the aforementioned relief.

[5] Mr. Riad deposes in his affidavit to a number of factual assertions that a review of the court record and other proceedings makes clear were factually inaccurate.

[6] At paragraph five of Mr. Riad’s affidavit he states that the Law Society found Mr. Weisman guilty of conflict of interest as well as professional misconduct. A review of the Law Society of Upper Canada Lawyer and Paralegal Directory states that Mr. Weisman has no discipline history.

[7] Mr. Riad confirmed in his submissions to me that he had received correspondence from the Law Society confirming that there was in fact no record of a discipline history involving Mr. Weisman. Mr. Riad chose not to correct the assertion in his affidavit when it was filed with the court, leaving this court with a factually inaccurate record concerning Mr. Weisman’s discipline history.

[8] Mr. Riad asserts in his affidavit that in July 2011 Chief Justice Warren Winkler “was willing to remove Mr. Weisman from the court’s record on behalf of my wife”. In a decision of Strathy J. (as he then was) dated April 19, 2011, in the matter involving Riad v. Aziz, Strathy J. states at paragraph 15 of his reasons:

Chief Justice Winkler, in an endorsement dated April 15, 2011, dismissed Mr. Riad’s motion to remove Mr. Weisman as his wife’s lawyer, noting: “There is no underlying proceedings in this court. Therefore, there is no matter that counsel could be removed from”.

[9] Again, the assertion made by Mr. Riad at paragraph eight of his affidavit is factually inaccurate.

[10] Of greater concern is the statement made by Mr. Riad in his affidavit at paragraph 14 when he states:

On October 12, 2012, a panel of the OCA, H.J. Laskin, H.H. Blair, and H.J. Epstein, ruled that any remedy or relief of Justice Salmers’ Judgment, wither [whether] it’s for a leave or for a rescission, must be obtained by a Judge at the Superior Court of Justice, and not through the OCA’s normal and regular proceedings.

[11] In point of fact, a review of the Appeal Book Endorsement from the Court of Appeal states:

We have not been persuaded that there is any basis to interfere with the order of Salmers J. dated February 7, 2012. In reaching this conclusion, we have not found it necessary to rely on any of the respondent’s material. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs fixed in the amount of $2,500 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

[12] The statement of Mr. Riad in paragraph 14, quoted above, therefore is again factually inaccurate. The appeal from the decision of Salmers J. was dismissed with costs. Those costs, by Mr. Riad’s own admission, have not been paid.

[13] In addition to the costs in the Court of Appeal there are numerous cost orders made by numerous judges of the Superior Court dating back to late 2010 through 2012. The total of these cost orders are approximately $11,000. By his own admission none of these cost orders have been paid by Mr. Riad. Mr. Riad asserts that most, if not all of the cost orders which are referenced at paragraph 12 of the responding affidavit of Alba Parmentola, have not been paid because they are the subject matter of various leaves to appeal or appeals. Mr. Riad put no evidence before me to confirm that such appeals had been filed. Given the age of many of the outstanding costs awards, and given Mr. Riad’s factually inaccurate assertions in his affidavit referenced above, I do not accept Mr. Riad’s excuse for non-payment of these costs awards.

[14] The relief sought by Mr. Riad primarily relates to the order of Salmers J. dated February 7, 2012 which states:

This court orders and adjudges that no further proceedings be instituted by the Respondent in any court, except with leave of a Judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

This court orders and adjudges 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.

[15] As previously noted, the order of Salmers J. was appealed to the Court of Appeal without success. Mr. Riad seeks “rescission of the judgment of The Honourable Justice Salmer”.

[16] Without citing Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the applicant could seek to have the order of Salmers J. set aside or varied if he could establish that it had been obtained by the respondent on grounds of fraud, or of facts arising or discovered after the order was made. There is no evidentiary record filed by Mr. Riad that would in any way satisfy the requirements of Rule 59.06(2)(a) that would allow this court to entertain, setting aside, varying or rescinding the order of Salmers J. Mr. Riad had every opportunity to appeal the order of Salmers J. to the Court of Appeal and he was unsuccessful. The order of Salmers J. remains outstanding. Until such time as Mr. Riad complies with all of the outstanding court orders, particularly those orders requiring him to pay costs, I see no basis upon which this court would exercise its discretion under s. 140(4) of the Courts of Justice Act. Mr. Riad simply has not taken to heart the comments made by a number of the judges of this court, particularly those of Strathy J. in his Endorsement of April 19, 2011, as well as the endorsement of Lauwers J. dated July 26, 2012.

[17] Mr. Riad fails to understand the import of court orders and the necessity to comply with those court orders. Mr. Riad, in addition to forcing the respondent and her counsel to deal with matters that have already been dealt with by this court, continues to abuse the court process and continues to waste precious judicial resources. In order to ensure that Mr. Riad complies with all outstanding court orders, before he commences any further proceedings in this court, I am directing that all such matters be brought to me in my capacity as the Local Administrative Judge for Newmarket. All matters that Mr. Riad intends to proceed with in this courthouse will be case managed by me.

[18] Mr. Riad’s application is dismissed with costs. If Mr. Weisman on behalf of the respondent seeks costs of this application I will receive cost submissions from Mr. Weisman within 10 days from receipt of these reasons, limited to two pages in length. Mr. Riad may respond within 10 days thereafter with responding cost submissions, again limited to no more than two pages in length.

Justice M.L. Edwards

Released: September 10, 2014