Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NOS.: Various

DATE: 20180405

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Numerous Proceedings Involving Nadire Atas

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: Christina J. Wallis, for Peoples Trust Gary M. Caplan, for Applicants other than Peoples Trust and the Chahals Yoginder Gulia, for the Chahals Nadire Atas, self-represented and for 626381 Ontario Limited

ENDORSEMENT

[1] In the judgment on the s.140 application, I provided detailed directions on materials to be provided by the parties in order to move forward with the underlying litigation. I also found that I would continue to act as case management judge for the underlying proceedings.

[2] Ms Atas has sought orders that I recuse myself on multiple occasions and has brought that issue to the Canadian Judicial Council and the Toronto Regional Senior Justice. She has also advised that she has appealed “every aspect” of the judgment.

[3] As Ms Atas has been advised by me, by the Canadian Judicial Council, and by the Toronto Regional Senior Justice, the question of my jurisdiction and of whether there is a basis on which I should recuse myself are exclusively matters for me to decide. Ms Atas’ remedy, if she disagrees with my decisions on these points (as evidently she does), is to appeal those decisions (which she says that she has done).

[4] In the judgment I advised the parties that the judgment will not be stayed by a statement of intention by Ms Atas that she would appeal, or by her bringing an appeal. I declined to stay the judgment myself on the basis that the underlying litigation should move forward. Ms Atas’ sole recourse, if she disagrees with this decision to move forward in the face of her appeal, is to seek an order for a stay of the judgment from the Court of Appeal. I so directed in the judgment. Ms Atas has had since January 3, 2018 to obtain a stay order from the Court of Appeal and to my knowledge has not done so and so far as I can tell from the materials delivered to me, has not tried to do so.

[5] In the face of this Court’s directions in the judgment, Ms Atas has delivered submissions predicated on the underlying judgment being wrong, this court lacking jurisdiction to proceed, and this Court being required to recuse itself from the underlying proceedings. In essence, her submissions are a long explanation as to why she is not complying with the judgment. These are arguments for the Court of Appeal, not for this Court.

[6] Ms Atas has fresh arguments about jurisdiction and reasonable apprehension of bias. She raised those initially at the case conference to settle the formal judgment. Among other things, she claims that this court is functus officio in its case management role for the underlying litigation because it is functus officio in respect to the s.140 application. She argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to supervise applications under s. 140(3) and pursuant to this Court’s Chevali order because she disagrees with the judgment. I directed Ms Atas that she could bring a motion respecting these points, if she wishes, and that her motion materials should be delivered by the same deadline that all her other materials were to be delivered, in accordance with the judgment. She has not done so.

[7] In the absence of an order from the Court of Appeal staying the judgment, the judgment stands as an authoritative disposition of the matters it decides. Ms Atas must comply with the judgment, and this Court will proceed with the underlying litigation on the basis of Ms Atas’ response.

[8] I will give Ms Atas a further chance to bring herself into compliance with the judgment. She will deliver all of the materials required of her by the judgment, in the form required in the judgment, by 12:00 noon, April 30, 2018. I shall set a case conference date in May 2018 to give directions about the future of the underlying litigation on the basis of the materials that have been received by that time.

[9] Ms Atas has requested a transcript from the case management conference in February 2018. Ms Atas has failed to comply with the terms of the judgment respecting her payment for transcripts previously ordered by her. I will not authorize preparation of further transcripts so long as she remains in non-compliance with this term of the judgment.

[10] I end by reminding Ms Atas of one of the core principles upon which the judgment is made. Court orders are authoritative. They are not suggestions, guidelines, or invitations for debate. They are mandatory and must be obeyed. If Ms Atas fails to comply with the directions in the judgment and the subsequent case conference orders, she risks having matters proceed on the basis of her non-compliance.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: April 5, 2018