SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Nagy Riad, Plaintiff
- and -
Marlien Aziz, Defendant
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice M.L. Edwards
Heard: In Writing
ENDORSEMENT
Introduction
1I had brought to me by the Supervisor of Court Operations for the Superior Court of Justice in Newmarket a Notice of Application that has not been filed, but which Mr. Riad seeks to file. As well, I have been provided with a Notice of Motion which seeks various headings of relief as follows:
“An Order to have the Local Administrative Judge, the Honourable Justice Mark Edwards, to allow and permit the Applicant to file and serve his new Notice of Application, mainly seeking the rescission of the Hon. Justice Salmers’ Order, as a sole relief.
An Order to have the Hon. Justice Edwards, the Local Administrative Judge, to release the Applicant’s assets under the Court File Number: FC-05-22844, that was initiated by the Respondent on ex-parte Motions without any knowledge or any proper serving upon the Applicant. That’s in order for the Applicant to comply with any outstanding court’s costs.
An Order from the Honourable Justice Mark Edwards, the Local Administrative Judge to allow the Applicant to re-possess ALL his Personal and Business Properties that the Respondent’s still holding against his will since January 7, 2006. So that the Applicant can comply with any outstanding court’s costs, as he was advised by three Police Departments since 2009.
An Order to allow the Applicant’s current counsel, Mr. Stephen Malach, who is currently representing the Applicant’s interests concerning his Motor Vehicle Accident (MVA), that occurred on January 1, 2012, and/or any future replacement counsel, to continue working on the Accident File Number: CV-13-117246-00, that was initiated in January 2012, right after the MVA, and long time before the discovery of Justice Salmers’ Order on June 18, 2012. The conclusion of this case (currently in the stage of the Discovery of Examination) will generate some financial gains that will enable the Applicant to comply with any outstanding court’s costs, certainly.
An Order to allow the Applicant and/or would-be retained counsel (the would-be replacement of Mr. Stephen Malach’s work since January, 2012’s MVA), to continue with his ongoing trial and court’s proceedings under Court File Number: SCC-14-00100388-0000. The Trial date was already set to be on April, 15, 2015.
An Order to remove Mr. David A. Weisman, and his Legal Firm, OKEEL & WEISMAN (not LLP) as solicitors of record for the Applicant’s wife, the Respondent, Mrs. Aziz.
Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court deems just.”
2On February 7, 2012, Salmers J. granted an Order pursuant to section 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.43 (“the Act”), directing that Mr. Riad could not commence or continue any further proceedings in any court except with leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. The Order of Salmers J. was appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario and pursuant to an Appeal Book Endorsement dated October 3, 2012, Mr. Riad’s appeal of the Order of Salmers J. dated February 7, 2012 was dismissed with costs fixed in the amount of $2,500.00.
Analysis
3Given the dismissal of Mr. Riad’s appeal of the Order of Salmers J., the relief that he seeks at paragraph one of his Notice of Motion is denied. As to the relief sought in paragraphs two and three of his Notice of Motion, this relief relates to family court proceedings involving his wife. The family court proceedings were consolidated as a result of an Order of McGee J. dated February 12, 2010, pursuant to which it was ordered that Mr. Riad not be permitted to file any further motions until he had paid all outstanding costs ordered. There has yet to be compliance with the Order of McGee J. and, as such, the relief that he seeks in paragraphs two and three is denied.
4As to the relief that he seeks with respect to paragraphs four and five concerning Court File Number CV-13-117246, this action relates to alleged injuries suffered as a result of an alleged motor vehicle accident. On March 16, 2015, I released a handwritten Endorsement allowing Mr. Riad to proceed with his action arising out of the motor vehicle accident. I am case managing that action. I note in paragraph five of Mr. Riad’s draft Notice of Motion that he suggests the trial of that matter was to proceed on April 15, 2015. I am unaware of any such trial date and as I am the case management judge for that action, any steps in relation to that action must be brought before me.
5As to the relief sought in paragraph six removing Mr. David Weisman as solicitor of record for his wife in the matrimonial proceedings, the relief sought in that regard has been sought on a number of occasions and been denied. (See Reasons of Lauwers J. dated July 31, 2012, and Reasons of Strathy J. dated April 21, 2011) This issue has been litigated, and no further evidence has been filed by Mr. Riad that would suggest any material change in circumstances and, as such, the relief sought in paragraph six of the Notice of Motion is denied.
Disposition
6Mr. Riad simply does not understand that he cannot proceed with any further actions in this court until he has complied with all outstanding orders of this court, including all outstanding costs awards. Mr. Riad persists in his effects to pursue further litigation, and I am advised by the Supervisor of Court Operations that he persists in using email addresses of various staff members associated with the administration of justice. Mr. Riad is not to use the email addresses of the court services staff. Mr. Riad, like any litigant, must attend at the filing office if he has business with this court. I am ordering Mr. Riad to cease and desist emailing any court staff associated with court operations for the Superior Court of Justice. Mr. Riad has been declared a vexatious litigant, and until such time as he complies with all outstanding orders of this court, including all outstanding costs awards made against him, he is not to initiate any further proceedings in this court. That relief has been sought numerous times in front of various judges of this court and has been denied. The relief sought in that regard is, therefore, denied.
Justice M.L. Edwards
Released: September 23, 2015