Court File and Parties
Court File No.: various Date: 20181127 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Caplan et al. v. Nadire Atas
Counsel: Nadire Atas self-represented
Heard: October 13, 2018
Before: D.L. Corbett J. (In Chambers, In Writing)
Case Management Endorsement
[1] Ms Atas sent an email to the court on November 26, 2018. It reads as follows:
Please forward to Justice Corbett as it is urgent
Pursuant to Paragraphs 15 and 16 of Justice Corbett's final Judgment dated January 3, 2018 that I have attached to this email, I ask the case management Judge Justice Corbett for an Order for fee waivers so I may request and accept fee waivers under the Administration of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.6, from the Court for the four (4) proceedings in the motion returnable December 5, 2018 before Justice Corbett. I am the defendant and respondent in all four (4) of the proceedings.
[2] In footnote 2 to my endorsement of November 23, 2018, I wrote as follows:
Ms Atas subsequently did deliver motion materials for this motion to Judges’ Administration. In so doing she has not been required to pay the filing fee for bringing a motion in a civil proceeding. She shall pay this fee and provide the court with proof of payment of the fee on December 7, 2018. Caplan v. Atas, 2018, ONSC 7044, para. 8, note 2.
[3] In my judgment of January 3, 2018, in which I found Ms Atas to be a vexatious litigant, I held as follows:
Ms Atas has conducted herself in such a way that she should not be permitted the benefit of fee waivers any more. She has put the court system, and thus the public purse, to considerable expense. Further, if there were some financial cost to her of bringing a proceeding or a step in a proceeding, she might exercise greater discretion in deciding which steps to take – just as is the case for other litigants. She is, apparently, impervious to adverse costs orders, and at the time being she is self-represented. Court fees and her own out-of-pocket expenses in duplicating materials and the like are the only financial disincentives for her to engage in frivolous litigation.
I would add one qualification to this decision. Ms Atas should be permitted to ask the case management judge to relieve her from paying particular court fees for particular steps in proceedings if she can establish, on proper evidence, that she meets the financial criteria for a fee waiver and that the interests of justice would be advanced by waiving those fees for her. Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 58, paras. 324-5.
[4] In my endorsement of September 28, 2018, I gave directions about how Ms Atas could apply for fee waivers, since she seemed to be under the misapprehension that all she had to do to get one was to ask. I concluded these directions by stating as follows:
Ms Atas has requested that the court grant her a general fee waiver in the Defamation Proceedings, because she is a defendant. Ms Atas’ status in the litigation is a relevant consideration, but is not, by itself, a sufficient basis to grant a fee waiver. Ms Atas has filed no evidence to establish a proper basis for a fee waiver, as described in paragraphs 324-325 of the Judgment. Her request for a general fee waiver for the Defamation Proceedings is denied, without prejudice to Ms Atas making a further request for this relief, on proper materials.
For any future requests for a fee waiver, Ms Atas shall observe the requirements set out in paragraphs 324-325 of the judgment. She may apply for fee waivers for “particular court fees for particular steps in proceedings”. She will have “to establish, on proper evidence, that she meets the financial criteria for a fee waiver” and she will have to establish that “it is in the interests of justice that the fee waiver be granted to her”. In the absence of such evidence she should not expect that a fee waiver will be granted. Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 5631, paras. 49-50.
[5] Ms Atas has not established, on proper evidence, that she meets the financial criteria for a fee waiver. She has noted that she is a defendant in each of the four proceedings she has referenced, but has not provided any other basis on which the court could conclude that it is in the interests of justice that the fee waivers be granted to her.
[6] Ordinarily this would be an end to this matter. The court ordinarily adjudicates once on a question. Having given Ms Atas detailed directions on what is required of her if she seeks a fee waiver, the court is loath to permit her to raise the question again – I am convinced that she understands perfectly well what this court has directed, and has not done it to underline her disagreement with this court’s decision, rather than through a misapprehension about what is required to get a fee waiver.
[7] This said, the fee waiver issue could be material to the four defamation proceedings in which Ms Atas is a defendant. Ms Atas’ request is dismissed, but without prejudice to a further request for a fee waiver in the four defamation proceedings, on proper materials. Such a request may not, however, be made, before Ms Atas has paid the fee for the motion she has brought returnable on December 7th. To be clear, although Ms Atas seeks orders setting aside notings in default in three proceedings, it is but one motion and she need pay but one court fee for filing a motion.
[8] I conclude by noting that in making this request, Ms Atas continues her vexatious conduct: she writes to the court in breach of the court’s directions about communications with the court, requests relief without providing any proper basis for it, and ignores three prior endorsements that give her express directions on the issue.