Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-574498 DATE: 20190529 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

JOSEPH CAPLAN et al. Gary Caplan, for the Plaintiffs Plaintiffs

- and -

NADIRE ATAS Self-represented Defendant

Case Management Endorsement

D.L. Corbett J.:

[1] This endorsement summarizes case management events since this court’s judgment was released in Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 58, in which the court found Nadire Atas to be a vexatious litigant and made numerous consequential orders and case management directions (the “Judgment”). [1] A supplementary case management order was made when I settled the form of the order to be issued pursuant to the Judgment (the “Supplementary Order”). [2] The Judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal on May 6, 2019. [3] The goal of this endorsement is to list outstanding litigation and litigation that has been concluded, to set out the status of outstanding litigation, and to provide an agenda for the case management conference to be held on May 31, 2019 (the “CMC”).

[2] The outstanding litigation falls into two broad categories: claims against Ms Atas, and claims brought by Ms Atas. [4] The claims brought by Ms Atas have not moved forward since the Judgment. Some have been dismissed for failure of Ms Atas to take steps required of her during case management. Ms Atas is cautioned that her remaining claims will also be dismissed if she fails to take steps respecting them as directed by the court.

[3] Claims against Ms Atas fall into three general categories:

(i) defamation and related claims, (ii) allegations of contempt of court, and (iii) claims related to mortgage enforcement costs and litigation costs.

Injunctions have been granted in each of four defamation actions against Ms Atas, and those four actions need to proceed to motions for summary judgment (as proposed by the plaintiffs in those actions) or trials. Ms Atas is alleged to have breached the injunctions, and proceedings seeking to find her in contempt of court for those breaches are pending before Pollak J.

Starting Position

[4] Schedule 1 to the Judgment lists outstanding litigation involving Ms Atas as of January 3, 2018. The Judgment gives directions about what is to be done about this litigation. I use paragraphs 342, 344 and 357-359 of the Judgment and paragraph 15 of the Supplementary Order as the organizing structure to describe the status of the litigation. Schedule A1 of this endorsement sets out an updated list of all litigation as of May 29, 2019. Schedule A2 sets out the remaining outstanding litigation as of May 29, 2019.

[5] Schedule 2 to the Judgment sets out a history of case management up to release of the Judgment. Schedule B to this endorsement continues this history from the Judgment to May 27, 2019. Since the Judgment I have adopted a practice of releasing endorsements that generally summarize what has taken place, so a review of the endorsements provides a history of what has taken place. Schedule B is a list of these endorsements, with a summary of their contents.

[6] Schedule C to this endorsement is a draft agenda for the case management conference on May 31, 2019, 10:00 am. As directed in my endorsements of May 3, 2019 (2019 ONSC 2820) and May 27, 2019 (2019 ONSC 3236), parties attending the CMC are requested to provide any proposed agenda items in addition to those set out on Schedule C by May 30, 2019. Please note that the order in which items are listed is random and does not reflect the order in which these issues may be addressed at the CMC.

Additional Issues Raised by Ms Atas – Jurisdiction, Allegations of Bias and “Constitutional Questions”

[7] Ms Atas has raised issues of jurisdiction and bias throughout the case management process both before and after the Judgment was released. Her pre-Judgment allegations were rejected in the Judgment for reasons given there. The Judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, and Ms Atas may not again raise the bias issues that have been finally disposed of as a result. This includes the argument respecting Rule 77 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (case management judge may not hear motions for summary judgment, or the underlying application on the merits), functus officio (this court is precluded from case management or other decisions in the underlying litigation because it decided the s.140 application), or allegations of reasonable apprehension of bias up to the date of the Judgment (January 3, 2018).

[8] Ms Atas has raised other allegations of bias arising since January 3, 2018, at least some of which have been disposed of by the court, or can no longer be pursued because Ms Atas failed to pursue them as directed by the court. However, Ms Atas has said in correspondence to the court that she has further allegations of bias she wishes to raise: these will be canvassed at the CMC and directions given in respect to how Ms Atas may raise these issues moving forward.

[9] Ms Atas has also indicated that she wishes to pursue certain “constitutional questions”. I do not know what “constitutional questions” Ms Atas wishes to raise – the first indication she gave that she had such issues was sometime in January 2019. [5] She may raise these at the CMC and the court will give directions in respect to how Ms Atas may pursue these issues.

[10] Ms Atas is cautioned that she will need to be in a position to describe her allegations of bias and “certain constitutional questions” with particularity at the CMC. If she does not, then the only direction she can hope to obtain at the CMC in respect to these issues is that she specifies these matters with particularity, in writing, ahead of the next CMC, at which time further directions will be given. Ms Atas asserted that these matters were sufficiently pressing to merit an urgent case conference earlier this year, a request that was rejected on the basis that Ms Atas provided no basis at all to establish urgency. Given the importance Ms Atas seemed to attach to these issues, the court will expect her to be in a position to fully describe them on May 31st.

Continuing Vexatious Conduct by Ms Atas

[11] This has been a difficult sixteen months in these matters, principally because Ms Atas has continued to conduct herself vexatiously towards opposing parties and towards the court:

(a) Ms Atas has failed to comply with court-ordered deadlines; (b) Ms Atas has breached direct court orders; (c) Ms Atas has refused to take steps to advance her own litigation; (d) Ms Atas has obstructed efforts of opposing parties to advance their litigation; (e) Ms Atas has continuously attacked the court’s decisions and integrity, apparently with a view to precipitating a response to support her allegations of bias.

[12] The overall picture is of a defiant, ungovernable litigant. The court has been patient with Ms Atas, because some of the outstanding matters could be of real consequence to her, and the court wishes to do what can be done to preserve her ability to participate in matters where she has an arguable position and where the interests at stake are material. The court will continue to be patient – but only to a point. Ms Atas has already been cited for contempt four times, and sentenced to a brief prison term (six days) in respect to one of these citations. Ms Atas should understand that she is required to obey this court’s orders, and to participate in case management with civility towards the court and towards opposing parties.

Filing of Court Materials

[13] The court has received an enormous volume of email correspondence in these matters since the Judgment. The court has been clear on this point in the past, but wishes to reiterate it here. Any materials filed in respect to a step in a proceeding – including motion records, factums, briefs of authorities, draft orders, and the like, must be filed in printed form, properly bound, with the court. If these materials are delivered directly to the court through Judges Administration, they must be accompanied by payment of the required court fee.

[14] Permitting the parties to deliver their materials directly to the court through Judges Administration is intended as a convenience, to expedite delivery of the materials to me, and to reduce the risk that the materials do not reach me. However, if the materials are not delivered in hard copy at all, this leads to difficulty tracking the materials and recording them in the file tracking system. In addition, parties are not entitled to avoid ordinary court fees by virtue of being in case management.

Materials Filed on Pending Steps

[15] The following dismissal motions are pending before me:

(a) Motion by various plaintiffs (mostly lawyers) to dismiss the actions against them by Ms Atas. The motion record was delivered on December 14, 2018. I have no record of any responding materials being delivered by Ms Atas. (b) Motion by Peoples Trust to dismiss CV-11-429180, an action against it brought by Ms Atas. The motion record was delivered on December 13, 2018. I have no record of any responding materials being delivered by Ms Atas. (c) Motion by Peoples Trust to confirm the dismissal of CV-10-411415, an action brought against it by Ms Atas. The motion record was delivered December 13, 2018. I have no record of any responding materials being delivered by Ms Atas. During case management it was made clear to the parties that the court would set aside the administrative dismissal of this action – the case was stayed by court order at the time of the administrative dismissal. The premise of Peoples Trust’s motion is not a challenge to the prior advice from the court that the administrative dismissal ought not to be prejudicial to Ms Atas. Rather, Peoples Trust takes the position that if the administrative dismissal was set aside, it would then be entitled to dismissal of the action for essentially the same reasons it seeks dismissal of CV-11-429180.

[16] As indicated above, I have no record of Ms Atas having delivered any responding materials to the dismissal motions delivered in December 2018. If Ms Atas says that she has delivered responding materials, she is asked to bring paper copies of these responses with her to the case management conference on May 31, 2019.

[17] The following motions for summary judgment are pending before me:

(a) Action CV-10-400035 (Stancer Gossin v. Atas) (b) Action CV-16-544153 (Dale & Lessman LLP v. Atas) (c) Action CV-18-594948 (Caplan v. Atas) (d) Action CV-18-608448 (Babcock v. Atas)

The evidence tendered on these motions – substantially identical for each of the four motions – consists of affidavits filed previously in these proceedings. The notices of motions, with memory sticks containing copies of previously filed materials relied upon for the motions, were delivered in January 2019. I have no record of Ms Atas delivering responding materials for these motions for summary judgment. If Ms Atas has delivered responding materials, she is requested to bring a paper copy of those materials with her to the CMC.

[18] I do not have a record of any further motions pending before me. If any party believes this to be incorrect, they should bring paper copies of the records for additional motions with them to the CMC.

[19] Any party uncertain about the scope of these requests to bring materials to the CMC may request clarification by email prior to the CMC.

Materials Delivered by Ms Atas

[20] In this section I address only materials delivered by Ms Atas that bear on ongoing case management. I do not list or reference materials sent by Ms Atas that are irrelevant to ongoing case management.

(a) Ms Atas delivered a document styled “Submissions” dated March 30, 2018, in purported response to directions given to her in the Judgment. The Submissions failed to address most of the matters requiring a response from Ms Atas. (b) Ms Atas delivered a document entitled “Response to Judgment” dated April 30, 2018. In it she stated, at paras. 17 and 18, “I intend to pursue actions that I have previously commenced. I will not be taking any steps in the actions that I have previously commenced until after the Court of Appeal has disposed of the appeal.” This position was in direct defiance of this court’s decision not to stay the Judgment and this court’s directions to Ms Atas in respect to the underlying litigation. In sum, this court ordered Ms Atas to proceed as directed with underlying litigation, and she refused to do so until after her appeal was decided. (c) Ms Atas delivered a brief Supplementary Response on April 30, 2018. (d) Ms Atas delivered an affidavit dated May 17, 2018, responding to the directions in the Judgment. This affidavit, for the first time, made substantive response to some, but not all, of the directions in the Judgment. (e) Ms Atas delivered a further response to the Judgment dated June 1, 2018.

[21] I have summarized material information provided by Ms Atas in her five documents said to be responsive to the Judgment in the balance of this endorsement and the attached chart of outstanding litigation. If Ms Atas says that she has delivered any further materials that ought to be considered in respect to the status of the underlying litigation and her response to the Judgment, then she should bring paper copies of these responses with her to the CMC.

[22] In the next section of this endorsement, I set out this court’s directions in the Judgment of January 3, 2018 and the Supplementary Case Management Order of February 23, 2018, and then summarize where matters currently stand in respect to each item. It should be noted that the narrative below is not intended to set out everything that has been said about each issue, but rather to provide sufficient explanation to understand where things stand as of May 29, 2019.

Progress On the Underlying Litigation

Judgment and Case Management Order – January 3, 2018

[23] The directions set out below in bold, in reduced font, are taken from the Judgment, paras. 342, 344, 357, 358, 359. The regular text that follows the bolded directions explains what has happened since the direction was made.

(1) 04-CV-279726 [Gomes and Kelly v. Respondents (Gomes/Kelly Mortgage Action)]: Ms Atas shall, by March 30, 2018, provide full particulars of all steps she wishes to take in respect to this action. These particulars should explain (a) why the issues she raises now would impact the judgment, (b) why she should be permitted to raise them now, after the judgment has been final since 2005 and has been paid in full, (c) when the issues she wishes to raise now first came to her attention, and why they were not raised at the time of this action. There shall be no other steps taken in respect to this proceeding without further order of this court. This direction applies to Ms Atas’ (i) request to assess costs; (ii) request to serve a demand for confirmation of authority under R.15.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; proposed motion to set aside or vary pursuant to R.59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and (iv) intention to take any other step of any kind respecting this proceeding.

[24] Ms Atas, in her submissions dated March 30, 2018, advised, at para. 62a.vii and viii, that she wishes to pursue a mortgagee costs assessment, to serve a notice pursuant to R.15, and to bring a motion under R.59.06 in the Gomes/Kelly Mortgage Action. Ms Atas did not provide any of the other information required of her in the Judgment in respect to these proposed steps. This amounted to no fresh information, since the proposed steps were identified in the Judgment.

[25] In her “Response to Judgment” dated April 30, 2018, paras. 12-13 and 29, Ms Atas advised that she intended to bring a R.59.06(2)(a) motion of the Rules of Civil Procedure in this case “after the Court of Appeal has disposed of the appeal.” She stated that the motion “can only be brought after the Court of Appeal has decided.” Ms Atas was subsequently disabused of this position by the court and directed to bring a Chavali request for any steps she wished to take respecting this action.

[26] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, paras. 40-54, Ms Atas recounted a history of the issue related to the participation of John Gomes in this litigation. She concludes that “[a]lthough I had some knowledge in 2005 and notified all of my lawyers and the Law Society of Upper Canada, it was on March 20, 2014 that I knew that Stancer Gossin Rose LLP and Rose & Rose and Scott Kelly had committed fraud on the court” (para. 54). Ms Atas has not provided information related to the materiality of the issue she now wishes to raise. The mortgages were advanced and were not repaid. The judgments of Pitt J. and the Court of Appeal finally determined the amounts owing under those mortgages. Ms Atas has not explained how and to what extent a potential finding that Mr Gomes was not one of the lenders would impact on her liability to repay the mortgages. This is not a new issue: it has been raised with her repeatedly during case management, and is important to any proportionality analysis the court may be required to bring to a request to re-open litigation that was finally determined so long ago. Ms Atas does give a narrative claiming that she incurred substantial losses as a result of the issue she now seeks to raise, but she has not particularized them in any way: this court attempted to make an assessment of the potential value of this claim in the s.140 application, and concluded that it could be as high as $21,000, but based on the absence of any particularization of the claim by Ms Atas. The information in Ms Atas’ affidavit of May 17, 2018 does not advance the court’s understanding of this issue beyond its understanding of it at the time of the s.140 Judgment.

[27] Ms Atas was directed repeatedly to deliver a Chavali requests if she wished to take any steps to re-open this long concluded case. She did not do so. As a consequence, case management shall proceed on the basis that this case has been authoritatively decided by the judgment of Pitt J. as affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

[28] This observation does not preclude Ms Atas from bringing a future Chavali request to re-open this litigation. However, given the time that has passed, and Ms Atas’ failure to take steps when directed by the court, Ms Atas should not expect to succeed in such a request unless she has a good explanation for her failure to take steps when directed by the court.

(2) 08-CV-364585 [Peoples Trust v. Atas (Wycliffe Mortgage Action)]: Peoples Trust shall deliver a statement showing its claimed balance owing on the Wycliffe Mortgage by January 31, 2018. Ms Atas shall deliver her response to this statement by March 30, 2018. Peoples Trust shall not respond or reply to Ms Atas’ response; rather, this court shall provide further directions about settling the outstanding balance after exchange of materials. Peoples Trust has already provided disclosure respecting its mortgage enforcement costs in its affidavit of documents served April 28, 2009, Disclosure Brief for the Assessment served July 21, 2010, and further disclosure of the Disclosure Brief in documents provided to Ms Atas’ then solicitor, Dr Hamalengwa on May 15, 2014. Peoples Trust should provide further disclosure of back-up documents for claimed costs that were not included in this previous disclosure when it provides its statement showing the balance owing. Ms Atas should request any further disclosure she seeks in her response to Peoples Trust’s statement of the balance owing. There shall be no other steps taken in respect to this proceeding without further order of this court.

[29] The court established a schedule for delivery of materials respecting the assessment of mortgagee costs, which has been completed by the parties. The court hopes to deliver an endorsement on this issue at the CMC. All issues relating to fixing and accounting for mortgage enforcement costs will be decided by this court, and will not be referred to an assessment officer for assessment.

(3) 08-CV-352871 [Peoples Trust v. Respondents (St George Street Mortgage Action)]: Peoples Trust shall deliver a statement showing its claimed balance owing on the St George Street Mortgage enforcement costs by January 31, 2018. Ms Atas shall deliver her response to this statement by March 30, 2018. Peoples Trust shall not respond or reply to Ms Atas’ response; rather, this court shall provide further directions about settling the outstanding balance after exchange of materials. Peoples Trust has already provided disclosure respecting its mortgage enforcement costs in its affidavit of documents served November 28, 2008, and Disclosure Brief for the Assessment served March 22, 2010. Peoples Trust should provide further disclosure of back-up documents for claimed costs not included in this previous disclosure at the same time that it provides its statement showing the balance owing. Ms Atas should request any further disclosure she seeks in her response to Peoples Trust’s statement of the balance owing. There shall be no other steps taken in respect of this proceeding without further order of this court.

[30] In her submissions of March 30, 2018, para. 62(c), Ms Atas states that she wishes to pursue assessments under the Mortgages Act. In her “Response to Judgment” dated April 30, 2018, paras. 31-34, Ms Atas states that she wishes to pursue an assessment of the mortgage enforcement costs in front of an assessment officer rather than this court.

[31] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, paras. 78-151, Ms Atas provides her argument that the judgment of Aston J. has been paid in full, and Peoples Trust is not entitled to mortgage enforcement costs pre-dating the judgment. She also provides her argument why Peoples Trust’s enforcement efforts were improper and why she believes she is entitled to relief for these allegedly wrongful efforts. In paras. 195-221 she addresses other concerns she has respecting mortgage enforcement costs accounting, and accounting for attorned rents in particular.

[32] In her supplementary affidavit of June 1, 2018, Ms Atas raises issues about the accuracy of various statements provided by Peoples Trust, and various enforcement steps taken by People’s Trust in respect to the balance it claims on the mortgage.

[33] I understand that Ms Atas argues that Peoples Trust is restricted to recovering the balance owing on the judgment in this action, and is not entitled to enforcement costs in addition to the amount of the judgment. Peoples Trust contests this position and the court will decide this conflict.

[34] Ms Atas has not provided any other response to Peoples Trust’s claims for mortgage enforcement costs, nor has she sought additional documents from Peoples Trust relating to their claimed mortgage enforcement costs, except for a handwritten paragraph (para. 74) in her supplementary affidavit sworn June 1, 2018:

There is an amount of $8,000 that was paid in to Peoples Trust for costs on 298 St. George St. as 12 Wycliffe actions, that were subsequently withdrawn. This money has not been accounted for by Peoples Trust and is subject to assessment under the Mortgages Act.

“2007” is handwritten beside this paragraph – it is not clear whether this is when Ms Atas says there was an $8,000 payment.

[35] The court established a schedule for delivery of materials respecting the assessment of mortgagee costs, which has been completed by the parties. The court hopes to deliver an endorsement on this issue at the CMC. All issues relating to fixing and accounting for mortgage enforcement costs will be decided by this court, and will not be referred to an assessment officer for assessment.

(4) Actions 98-CV-148544 (Aarko v. Respondents), 98-CV-2438666 (Stable Electric v. Respondents), 99-CV-176687 (Atas v. Susman), 01-204981 (Royal Bank v. Respondents), 02-CV-222834 (Respondents v. Daimin), (02-CV-236212 (Atas v. Pinkofsky Lockyer), 04-CV-272499 (Respondents v. Balitsky), 04-CV-272500 (Respondents v. Greer), 07-CV-339942 (CIBC v. Atas), 07-CV-346185 (Atas v. Davies McLean Zweig), 08-CV-350523 (Toronto v. Respondents), 10-CV-400425 (Toronto v. Respondents). Ms Atas shall advise this court, under oath, of the status of these proceedings by March 30, 2018, including whether the judgment has been satisfied. Where the proceeding has been disposed of on a final basis (including all appeals), Ms Atas shall provide a copy of the final order and shall certify in an affidavit that she does not intend to take any further step in the proceeding, or, if she does intend to take any further steps, what those steps are. If Ms Atas does not have a copy of the final order, she may attest to it by way of affidavit. If any of these proceedings has not been disposed of finally, Ms Atas shall provide a list of the name(s), lawyer(s) and addresses for service of all parties to that litigation.

[36] In her submission dated March 30, 2018, Ms Atas objected to these files being included on the list and failed to provide the required information.

[37] In her Response to Judgment dated April 30, 2018, Ms Atas said that the only one of these actions that she “may be pursuing” is Atas v. Davies McLean Zweig, a solicitor-client assessment. She states that the two proceedings involving Toronto “were resolved many years ago.” She provides no information about the other proceedings.

[38] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, paras. 239, 240, 242, 243, 244, 246 Ms Atas advised that the proceedings brought by Aarko and Stable Electric were “resolved” in 1999, the action by Royal Bank was “resolved” in 2001, the action involving Pinkofsky Lockyer (solicitor/client assessment) was “resolved”, the action against Daimin was “resolved” in 2002, the action against Greer (solicitor/client assessment) was resolved in 2004, the action by CIBC was “resolved” in 2008, the 2 proceedings involving Toronto were “resolved. Nothing owing.” I have removed all of these cases from the list of active litigation.

[39] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, Ms Atas reports that the following actions are not resolved:

(a) Atas v. Susman: she advises that she will “take steps in this assessment to bring it to a resolution.” (para. 241) (b) Atas v. Balitsky: she advises that she “will take steps in this assessment to bring it to a resolution.” (para. 245) (c) Atas v. Davies McLean Zweig: she advises that she “will take steps in this assessment to bring it to a resolution.” (para. 248)

[40] Ms Atas has not provided any further information about these old actions that she says are still outstanding.

(5) The following actions are dismissed with the consent of the respondents: 11-CV-429572 (Atas v. Dale & Lessman LLP), 11-CV-429573 (Atas v. Dale & Lessman LLP), 14-507402 (Atas v. Steinberg), 14-CV-507409 (Atas v. Bresver Grossman Scheininger & Chapman LLP), 14-CV-507414 (Atas v. Seon Gutstadt Lash LLP) and 14-CV-507421 (Atas v. Bresver Grossman Scheininger & Chapman LLP). If any parties to these proceedings claim costs in respect to them, they shall provide bills of costs and written argument of no more than five pages to this court by January 31, 2018. Ms Atas shall provide any responding submissions by March 30, 2018. There shall be no reply submissions or oral costs submissions in respect to these proceedings unless this court subsequently orders otherwise.

[41] These actions were all dismissed pursuant to the judgment of January 3, 2018. No parties to these proceedings sought costs, and so these matters are now concluded.

[42] In her submission of March 30, 2018, Ms Atas says that there was a “contentious exchange” with the court over “dismissal of some of the actions”. She also says that “this aspect of the judgment is under appeal.” Ms Atas does not identify which actions she says were not dismissed on consent.

[43] In her “Response to Judgment” dated April 30, 2018, Ms Atas states that she “may pursue” the two actions she commenced against Dale + Lessman LLP in 2011. She says that she will not be taking any steps “until after the Court of Appeal has disposed of the appeal.” She says nothing about the other proceedings.

[44] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, paras. 251-254, Ms Atas states that she wishes to amend her pleadings and pursue the actions against Peoples Trust.

[45] Ms Atas confirms that she “will not be pursuing” the other four actions listed here.

[46] Given the dismissal of Ms Atas’ appeal, there is nothing further to be done respecting these proceedings: they have all been dismissed. If Ms Atas wishes to seek to set aside the dismissals of the actions against Peoples Trust, she will need to make a Chavali request. That request will have to explain (in addition to the usual points to be covered in a Chavali request) (a) why the consent order should be set aside; and (b) why her request is not foreclosed by the Judgment and by the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing her appeal.

(6) 11-CV-429140 (Atas v. Steinberg): Ms Atas states that she has no knowledge of this proceeding. The court shall give further directions about this proceeding at the next case management conference.

[47] As confirmed by Ms Atas in her submission of March 30, 2018, para. 62(f), and her “Response to Judgment dated April 30, 2018, para. 40, and upon reviewing the court file, this file was listed on the case list in error. 11-CV-429140 was never a case involving Ms Atas. It is removed from the lists of Atas files.

(7) The following actions appear to be disputes over legal fees or claims against lawyers: 05-CV-302734 (Respondents v. Baker Schneider Ruggiero), 05-CV-302736 (Respondents v. Côté), 05-CV-302742 (Respondents v. Kagan Shastri), 05-CV-302891 (Côté v. Respondents), 06-313064 (Respondents v. Kagan Shastri), 06-CV-315208 (Respondents v. Brooker), 06-CV-315671 (Respondents v. Steinberg Morton), 06-SC-39478 (Brooker v. Atas), 07-CV-343745PD1 (Respondents v. Kagan Shastri), 07-SC-50451 (Baker Schneider Ruggiero v. Respondents), 08-CV-349206PD3 (Respondents v. Brooker), 08-CV-354613 (Respondents v. Steinberg Morton), 09-CV-391695 (Respondents v. Kimberley), 10-CV-411421 (Respondents v. Mitchell and Canizares), 10-CV-411424 (Respondents v. Bresver), 10-SC-99076 (Brooker v. Respondents), 11-CV-429140 (Respondents v. Steinberg), 11-CV-429148 (Atas v. Steinberg), 11-CV-429176 (Respondents v. Mitchell), 14-CV-504825 (Respondents v. Stancer Gossin Rose). Any lawyer or law firm that is a party to any of these proceedings, and which claims that it is still owed legal fees by Ms Atas for professional services rendered, shall provide the following information to the court by January 31, 2018:

(a) The amounts claimed (including a breakdown of fees, disbursements, other claims, and interest); (b) The time during which the professional services were rendered; (c) The court file numbers in which these claims have been asserted; (d) Any court orders that have been made in respect to these claims (other than this judgment and case management orders made by this court or by Stinson J.).

Ms Atas shall provide the following information by March 30, 2018 in respect to the information furnished by the solicitors pursuant to this direction:

(a) Whether she disputes the retainer; (b) Whether she disputes the quantum claimed for fees, disbursements, other claims, and/or interest; (c) Whether she has paid anything on account of these claims; (d) Aside from counterclaims, whether there is any basis on which she disputes her obligations to pay these claims.

In respect to any claims advanced by Ms Atas against any of the lawyers and law firms, she shall, by March 30, 2018, provide the court with the following information:

(a) The amount she claims against each lawyer or law firm, in total; (b) All of the reasons she claims those amounts from each lawyer or law firm; (c) When and in what proceeding she first asserted the claims she now wishes to pursue against the lawyers.

[48] None of the lawyers now pursues claims for legal fees from Ms Atas. I believe that all of them have brought motions to dismiss these actions for failure of Ms Atas to make Chavali requests to continue them.

[49] In a letter dated January 19, 2018, counsel for David Sloan and Baker Schneider Ruggiero advised that 05-CV-302734 had been disposed of and should not remain on the list.

[50] The small claims court action against Mr Sloan and his law firm was dismissed (including the counterclaim) by order of this court dated December 7, 2018.

[51] In her submission dated March 30, 2018, para. 62(g), Ms Atas failed to provide any of the required particulars. She contested this court’s authority to require this information or to case manage the underlying litigation.

[52] In her Response to Judgment dated April 30, 2018, Ms Atas identified proceedings against Baker Schneider Ruggiero, Kagan Shastri, Brooker, Steinberg Morton, Kimberley, Mitchell and Canizares, Bresver, Steinberg, Mitchel and Stancer Gossin Rose as proceedings she intends to pursue. She stated that she “will not be taking any steps in the actions that I have previously commenced until after the Court of Appeal has disposed of the appeal.” She provided none of the required particulars pursuant to the Judgment.

[53] In her Supplementary Response to Judgment dated April 30, 2018, Ms Atas states that some of these proceedings are solicitor/client assessments and some of them are small claims court actions concerning the same disputed accounts.

[54] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, paras. 177-181, Ms Atas states that she intends to pursue her action 11-CV-429176 (Atas v. Mitchell) for solicitors negligence relating to Mr Mitchell’s representation of her on the redemption and payout of the Wycliffe mortgage. She has not delivered a Chavali request to do this.

[55] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, paras. 224-231, 265-271, 273, 274, Ms Atas states that she intends to pursue solicitor’s negligence cases against Mitchell, Canizares, Bresver, Kagan Shastri, Brooker, Steinberg Morton, Kimberley, Steinberg. In response to the court’s requirement that she particularize these claims, she states baldly that the lawyers “made errors or mistakes, and have acted beneath or beyond the standard of care expected of them, and made errors, and their behaviour has caused damage (financial and otherwise) to me.” She has not delivered Chavali requests in respect to any of these claims.

[56] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, para. 275, Ms Atas states that she intends to pursue her claims against Stancer Gossin Rose “in fraud and misrepresentation”. She has particularized these allegations elsewhere in her affidavit of May 17, 2018, though Ms Atas has not provided all of the required particulars to explain the materiality of her allegations, as explained above. She has not delivered a Chavali request in respect to this claim.

[57] The lawyers have brought motions to dismiss these actions for failure of Ms Atas to make Chavali requests to continue them. Ms Atas has not responded to these motions.

(8) The following actions appear to concern mortgages on the Wycliffe Property or the St George Street Property and appear to have been concluded on a final basis: 07-CV-336072 (Peoples Trust v. Respondents), 07-CV-341210 (Hilson v. Respondents), 07-CV-342059 (Peoples Trust v. Atas), 08-CV-359261 (Hilson v. Respondents). Ms Atas shall confirm the status of these proceedings, under oath, by March 30, 2018.

[58] In her submission of March 30, 2018, para. 62(h), Ms Atas refused to provide the required information respecting the proceedings involving Hilson on the basis that Hilson was not a party to the s.140 application. She also, in para. 62(h), refused to provide information in respect to the two actions commenced by Peoples Trust on the basis that, as a defendant, she was not required to do so. She repeated her position on these issues on her Response to Judgment dated April 30, 2018, para. 45.

[59] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, Ms Atas states that she does “not believe they are completed” and that she remembers “Nicholas Canizares dealing with him in a contentious manner in 2009.” These comments seem to relate to the actions involving Hilson.

(9) The following actions appear to be claims arising from the Gomes/Kelly Mortgage Enforcement Action: 08-CV-346821PD3 (Respondents v. Pires). Ms Atas shall advise whether she intends to continue with this proceeding by March 30, 2018. No other steps shall be taken in this proceeding pending the next case management meeting and pending further order of this court.

[60] In her submission of March 30, 2018, para. 62(i), Ms Atas refused to provide the required information. She repeated her position in her “Response to Judgment dated April 30, 2018, paras. 46-49.

[61] In her affidavit dated May 17, 2018, Ms Atas advised that she intends to pursue this action. She raises issues about the name “Megacorp” which, on their face, appear to be pointless. She has not delivered a Chavali request in respect to the proceeding.

(10) 10-CV-400035 [Stancer Gossin v. Atas (the First Defamation Action)]: the plaintiffs shall advise the court by January 31, 2018, if they wish to continue with this proceeding to trial, and if they do, their proposed schedule for steps to complete the trial. Ms Atas shall provide her position to the court by March 30, 2018.

[62] The plaintiffs noted Ms Atas in default in this proceeding on March 29, 2018. This step was in violation of the court’s stay of all proceedings involving Ms Atas and the noting in default was set aside summarily on May 1, 2018.

[63] A motion for summary judgment has been served by the plaintiff, in January 2019, and further steps in the case will be addressed at the case management conference of May 31, 2019.

[64] Ms Atas states in her affidavit of May 17, 2018, para. 283, that she intends “to bring a motion to set aside the interlocutory injunction dated May 12, 2010” after which she will “be seeking limited discovery” after which “the matter will go to trial.” Ms Atas has not delivered a Chavali request to bring a motion to set aside the injunction.

(11) The following actions appear to arise from the enforcement of the Peoples Trust mortgages: 10-CV-411415 (Respondents v. Peoples Trust), 11-CV-429151 (Respondents v. Chahal), 11-CV-429180 (Atas v. Peoples Trust). Ms Atas shall advise whether she intends to continue with these proceedings by March 30, 2018. No other steps shall be taken in these proceedings pending further order of this court.

[65] In her submissions of March 30, 2018, para. 62(k), Ms Atas notes that these actions, or some of them, have been administratively dismissed because she was precluded from taking any steps by reason of stay orders granted by Stinson J. and this court. Ms Atas was advised several times during case management that administrative dismissals would be set aside in due course, but not until after the s.140 application was decided. The administrative dismissals were not a proper basis for Ms Atas failing to provide the information required of her in respect to these proceedings in the Judgment. Ms Atas repeats her position on these files in her Response to Judgment dated April 30, 2018.

[66] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, paras. 182-184, 287, Ms Atas states that she intends to pursue Atas v. Peoples Trust (11-CV-429180). She has not delivered a Chavali request in respect to it. In that same affidavit, paras. 232-237, 284, she asserts the same position respecting 10-CV-411415. She likewise has not delivered a Chavali request for this action.

[67] Ms Atas did provide some information about these claims in her supplementary affidavit of June 1, 2018 (paras. 55-67).

[68] The court gave directions for transfer of the personal property from the Chahals to Ms Atas during the summer of 2018. Those directions are set out in prior case management endorsements. This process was not completed until immediately after the case management conference of September 14, 2018. Ms Atas was directed to make Chavali requests to continue her claims against the Chahals. She failed to do so and in the result those claims were dismissed as a consequence on December 7, 2018.

(12) The following actions appear to include unpaid commissions held by Sutton Group following receipt of a notice of garnishment, and claims against Sutton Group for various alleged conduct: 12-SC-6446 (Atas v. Sutton), 13-SC-21972 (Atas v. Sutton) and 14-CV-498399 (Atas v. Sutton). Sutton Group shall advise by January 31, 2018 of the quantum (if any) of the amount it holds that it acknowledges is owed to Ms Atas, and whether it objects to paying this amount into court. Ms Atas shall provide her responding position by March 30, 2018. No other steps shall be taken in these proceedings pending further order of this court.

[69] In her Response to Judgment dated April 30, 2018, Ms Atas states that these actions have been dismissed administratively. The court has requested copies of the dismissal orders but no party has yet provided them. Based on Ms Atas’ statements, these actions were dismissed administratively while they were stayed by order of Stinson J. or of this court. Thus the dismissal orders may be set aside by this court, but not until the parties have provided the court with the requisite documents from the court files.

[70] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, Ms Atas advises that she wishes to proceed with these claims. She notes, correctly, that Sutton Group and its agents have not responded to this court’s Judgment of January 3, 2018. I agree with Ms Atas that the failure of the Sutton Group parties to comply with this court’s direction in the Judgment is a basis for continuing with these proceedings in case management.

[71] In her supplementary affidavit dated June 1, 2018, Ms Atas advises that she has a claim for commissions against Sutton Group for $40,176.50. She advises that these actions were dismissed administratively during the period in which her proceedings were stayed by orders of Stinson J. and this court. As the parties were advised repeatedly during case management prior to decision in the s.140 application, administrative dismissals made in violation of this court’s stay orders will be set aside in due course so that the actions may proceed if there is some basis for those actions.

[72] At the case management conference of May 31, 2019, the court will consider making orders setting aside any dismissals in these proceedings and transferring them into the Superior Court. It will also consider taking further steps respecting the alleged unpaid commissions, including, without limitation, an order the commissions be paid into court. As Sutton Group was warned in prior endorsements, if it chooses not to attend the case management conference, orders could be made against its interests in its absence.

[73] Ms Atas should understand that she will still have to make Chavali requests to continue with this litigation.

(13) In subparagraph (4), above, I give directions respecting proceedings listed in Schedule 1 about which this court has little or no information concerning the status of those proceedings. Ms Atas, in her cross-examination, did not know how many times she had been involved in legal proceedings before the Gomes/Kelly Mortgage Action in 2004. Eight such proceedings are listed in Schedule 1. It is not necessary for the court to concern itself with ancient proceedings that have been concluded. On the other hand, the court wants a complete list of every proceeding that is still outstanding. Ms Atas is directed to identify to the court by March 30, 2018, under oath, any additional legal proceedings in which either respondent is a party that are not listed on Schedule 1, and the status of those proceedings:

(a) of any kind, concluded or otherwise, from June 1, 2004 to the present; and (b) commenced at any time prior to January 1, 2004 if the proceeding has not been finally disposed of or if Ms Atas intends to seek to re-open, vary or set aside the final disposition.

[74] Ms Atas did not address this requirement in her submission of March 30, 2018.

[75] In her “Response to Judgment” of April 30, 2018, para. 28, Ms Atas indicates as follows:

There is a matter in the Hamilton (sic) related to 12 Wycliffe. It is a provincial matter and not a civil matter in the Superior Court. I am dealing with it in Hamilton.

In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, para. 26, Ms Atas advises that this is a “matter related to fire code violations at 12 Wycliffe Ave from July 2009”. She also says that “I don’t have more information than this. I can get more information at a later date.” Ms Atas is required to provide the court with full particulars of this proceeding including (a) the court file number; (b) the status of the litigation; and (c) the issues involved in the case (including its monetary value).

[76] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, Ms Atas advises that she and her company are parties to Atas v. Seon Gutstadt Lash (CV-11-429577). She does not say what this case is about. She says “I intend to amend and proceed”. Ms Atas is required to provide the court with full particulars of this proceeding including (a) the status of the litigation; and (b) the issues involved in the case (including its monetary value).

[77] In her affidavit sworn May 17, 2018, Ms Atas apparently misinterprets this requirement as an order to list proceedings not involving applicants to the s.140 application (see affidavit, paras. 11-25). She also notes that SC-09-83188, Steinberg v. Atas, is not on the schedule of litigation. In her view it ought to be.

[78] In her supplementary affidavit of June 1, 2018, she identifies Dale + Lessman v. Atas (CV-16-544153) (the “2016 Defamation Action”) as a proceeding in which she is a party which is not listed in Schedule 1 to the Judgment. This has been added to the litigation list, as have the two defamation actions started in 2018.

(14) In her materials, Ms Atas proposes consolidating outstanding legal proceedings into two proceedings, with amendments to the pleadings. The proposed consolidations do not seem fair to many of the litigants (for example, why should the Chahals be caught up in litigation between Ms Atas and her former solicitors). However, some sort of consolidation or streamlining of proceedings and some amendment to pleadings may be appropriate once it is decided whether and which proceedings will continue. The court will give further directions on this issue in due course, after the steps outlined above have been completed.

[79] The court will make directions in this regard once a list of outstanding litigation that will move forward is established.

(16) Ms Atas has abused the court process and has put the administration of justice to extraordinary and wasteful expense. She has, in past, been ordered to pay outstanding court fees. It is not clear that she has ever done so. To the extent that Ms Atas has ever been eligible for fee waivers by reason of her financial circumstances, she is no longer entitled to that benefit by reason of her conduct as a litigant. Henceforth Ms Atas shall be required to pay ordinary court filing fees unless a judge orders otherwise in a particular case.

(21) Any fee waivers for the respondents are set aside. Ms Atas shall henceforth pay any applicable court fees for any litigation in which she is a party unless she obtains an order for a fee waiver from the case management judge. Ms Atas is ordered not to request or accept fee waivers unless and until Ms Atas has obtained an order for a fee waiver from the case management judge. [6]

[80] Considerable direction has been given to Ms Atas on this issue since the Judgment, as reflected in Schedule “B”: to this endorsement.

(18) In respect to all costs orders made against Ms Atas, this court needs to receive the following information:

(a) the proceeding in which the order was made; (b) the party in whose favour the order was made; (c) the date of the award; (d) the quantum of the award; (e) the applicable rate of interest on the award; (f) the payment terms on the award; (g) any payment(s) made on account of the award.

With this information in hand, the court can then consider whether non-payment of outstanding costs awards, in a particular case, should be a factor in deciding whether that case should be permitted to proceed further and if so, on what terms. Any party seeking payment of an outstanding costs order shall provide his information to the court by January 31, 2018. Ms Atas shall provide her position on these issues to the court by March 30, 2018. [7]

[81] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, para. 39, Ms Atas states that “much of the costs orders were obtained during the period when Peoples Trust had actual or constructive notice of incapacity. I will be bringing a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and any related costs orders obtained during that period and in proceedings involving Peoples Trust….” Ms Atas has not delivered a Chavali request in respect to this intended motion.

[82] Peoples Trust provided a list of outstanding costs orders as of January 3, 2018. This list was reviewed at the case management conference on December 7, 2018. The list was confirmed, excepting only the costs awards made by Lederer J. and Aston J. in the judgments they granted in the Peoples Trust mortgage actions. The costs orders were granted; there is no issue about that. However, Ms Atas argues that these costs were paid out of the proceeds of sale of the properties, and thus have been paid. This shall be addressed in the mortgage enforcement costs accounting to be completed by this court.

[83] To this list should be added any additional costs awards that have been made since the list was prepared by Peoples Trust. I ask that any party that takes the position that it is owed costs not reflected on the list considered on December 7, 2018 bring a list of such costs orders to the CMC.

(19) The respondents have filed, from time to time, uncertified copies of court transcripts. I have dealt with this when it has arisen and come to my attention. It is concerning, however, because uncertified transcripts are generally drafts that have been provided by a court reporter which have not been certified because the reporter has not yet been paid in full. The obligation to pay for the transcript is not contingent on the party seeking a certified copy after reviewing a draft of the transcript. Ms Atas shall advise the court, by March 30, 2018, under oath, if there are any transcripts she has ordered during the course of the s.140 application for which she has not paid, including the amount owed and any reason(s) for non-payment. [8]

[84] This issue has been fully addressed (see Atas Affidavit sworn May 17, 2018, paras. 1-8). No further action is required in respect to it.

(20) The applicants shall provide a draft judgment to the court by January 19, 2018. Ms Atas shall provide her approval to the draft judgment or her comments about the draft judgment to the court by February 2, 2018. The parties shall also identify any typographical or similar errors in the judgment that they wish corrected and shall identify any issues in this application which they believe have not been decided in this judgment, at the same time that they provide the court with their draft orders. All parties are reminded that this process of settling the order is not an opportunity to re-argue the application or to debate the decisions that have been rendered. [9]

[85] This term has been addressed fully, as reflected in the events described in Schedule “B” to this endorsement. No further action is required.

(22) The applicants shall provide written costs submissions by January 31, 2018. These shall include bills of costs, any pertinent offers to settle, and written submissions of no longer than fifteen pages. The respondents shall provide written responding submissions by March 30, 2018. These may include a bill of costs, any pertinent offers to settle, and written submissions of no longer than fifteen pages. There are no restrictions on the number of authorities that may be included by either side. There shall be no reply or oral costs submissions unless I hereafter direct otherwise. [10]

[86] These issues have been decided, as reflected in Schedule “B” to this endorsement. No further action is required in respect to it.

(23) Ms Atas indicates in one of her affidavits that she seeks costs for motions brought by Peoples Trust for orders that she be declared vexatious, returnable January 19, 2012 and March 19, 2012. Ms Atas claims costs for these appearances. She shall provide her bills of costs, any pertinent offers, and written submissions no longer than ten pages in length, single-spaced, by January 31, 2018. These submissions shall also include Ms Atas’ argument as to why she believes she is entitled to costs of these appearances. The applicants shall provide their responding submissions by February 28, 2018. [11]

[87] This issue will be addressed by an endorsement the court hopes to provide to the parties at the CMC.

(24) A copy of these reasons and the formal judgment should be placed in each file listed in Schedule 1 that has not already been disposed of finally. The applicants will prepare a list of the files they say fit into this category when they provide their draft judgment; Ms Atas will provide her comments on this list at the time that she provides her comments on the draft judgment.

[88] The court wishes to ensure that this term has been completed, and to take steps to ensure that all affected court files have copies of necessary orders.

(25) There has been a history of inappropriate direct communications with the court which have, at times, devolved into argument about the directions given by the court, or advocacy respecting the parties’ positions. This is not to continue. The parties are not to communicate with the court other than:

(a) where expressly authorized to do so by the court; (b) to request a case management conference or other appointment before the court; or (c) with the consent of all affected parties. [12]

[89] This direction has not been followed by Ms Atas. As stated in this court’s endorsement on May 3, 2019 (ONSC 2820), at the CMC the court will set a show cause date to consider whether Ms Atas should be cited for contempt of court for her recent improper communications with the court, in violation of this provision of the Judgment and numerous admonitions on this point since the Judgment.

Supplementary Case Management Order – February 23, 2018

[90] At the time that the parties settled the form of the Judgment before me, Ms Atas raised matters that she felt had not been addressed by case management directions in the Judgment. I accepted her submissions on these points:

It was my intention in the judgment to set out a case management process that requires and permits Ms Atas to identify any step she wishes to take in any outstanding litigation so that case management can move forward for all the outstanding litigation. It was not my intention to foreclose Ms Atas from pursuing any step she wishes to take without first giving her a chance to raise it in the case management process. [13]

I then gave directions in respect to three items that Ms Atas identified that she wished to pursue:

(a) Ms Atas shall, by March 30, 2018, provide full particulars of all steps she wishes to take in respect to 08-CV-364585 [Peoples Trust v. Atas (Wycliffe Mortgage Action)] in addition to the assessment of mortgage enforcement costs. These particulars should explain (a) why the issues that she wishes to raise now would impact the judgment, (b) why she should be permitted to raise them now, after final judgment has been granted and the appeal from that judgment has been dismissed, and (c) when these issues first came to her attention and why they were not raised earlier. No further steps shall be taken respecting these issues pending further direction from the case management judge.

[91] In her submission of March 30, 2018, para. 62(b), Ms Atas stated that she wishes to move under R.59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that she was an “inpatient” when summary judgment was obtained. Ms Atas also states that she wishes to pursue motions adjourned by Stinson J. on September 12, 2012.

[92] In her “Response to Judgment” dated April 30, 2018, paras. 12-13 and 30, Ms Atas advised that she intended to bring a R.59.06(2)(a) motion of the Rules of Civil Procedure in this case “after the Court of Appeal has disposed of the appeal.” She stated that the motion “can only be brought after the Court of Appeal has decided.” Ms Atas was subsequently disabused of this position by the court and directed to bring a Chavali request for any steps she wished to take respecting this action.

[93] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, paras. 152-162, Ms Atas advises that she intends to move to set aside the judgment of Aston J. on the basis that she was mentally incapable to the time that judgment was rendered.

[94] Ms Atas was directed to deliver a Chavali request if she wishes to take any steps to re-open this long concluded case. She has not done so. Case management shall proceed on the basis that this case has been authoritatively decided by the judgment of Aston J.

[95] This observation does not preclude Ms Atas from bringing a future Chavali request to re-open this litigation. However, given the time that has passed, and Ms Atas’ failure to take steps when directed by the court, Ms Atas should not expect to succeed in such a request unless she has a good explanation for the long delay and her failure to take steps when directed by the court.

(b) Ms Atas shall, by March 30, 2018, provide full particulars of all steps she wishes to take in respect to 08-CV-352871 [Peoples Trust v. Respondents (St George Street Mortgage Action)] in addition to the assessment of mortgage enforcement costs. These particulars should explain (a) why the issues that she wishes to raise now would impact the judgment, (b) why she should be permitted to raise them now, after final judgment has been granted and the appeal from that judgment has been dismissed, and (c) when these issues first came to her attention and why they were not raised earlier. No further steps shall be taken respecting these issues pending further direction from the case management judge.

[96] In her submissions of March 30, 2018, para. 62(c), Ms Atas states that she wishes to pursue assessments under the Mortgages Act. She does not indicate any other steps she wishes to take in respect to this proceeding.

[97] In her “Response to Judgment” dated April 30, 2018, paras. 12-13, Ms Atas advised that she intended to bring a R.59.06(2)(a) motion of the Rules of Civil Procedure in this case “after the Court of Appeal has disposed of the appeal.” She stated that the motion “can only be brought after the Court of Appeal has decided.” Ms Atas was subsequently disabused of this position by the court and directed to bring a Chavali request for any steps she wished to take respecting this action.

[98] In her affidavit of May 17, 2018, paras. 185-194, 222-223, Ms Atas states that she wishes to pursue her litigation respecting the St George St Mortgage on the basis that the order of Lederer J. should be set aside because he was misled (a) that Ms Atas was represented by David Bresver, and (b) that she had received independent legal advice respecting the mortgage. Ms Atas also states that the judgment ought to be set aside because she was mentally incapacitated at the time. Ms Atas has explained her theory of these issues, but has not provided the particulars set out above.

[99] Ms Atas was directed to deliver a Chavali request if she wishes to take any steps to re-open this long concluded case. She did not do so. Case management shall proceed on the basis that this case has been authoritatively decided by the judgment of Lederer J.

[100] This observation does not preclude Ms Atas from bringing a future Chavali request to re-open this litigation. However, given the time that has passed, and Ms Atas’ failure to take steps when directed by the court, Ms Atas should not expect to succeed in such a request unless she has a good explanation for the long delay and her failure to take steps when directed by the court.

(c) If Ms Atas claims costs now for any step in any of the prior proceedings (other than the appearances of January 19, 2012 and March 19, 2012), she shall, by March 30, 2018, identify these claims for costs and explain why she believes she is entitled to these claimed costs now. No further steps shall be taken respecting these costs claims pending further direction from the case management judge.

[101] This issue will be addressed by an endorsement the court hopes to provide to the parties at the CMC.

Defamation Proceedings Against Ms Atas

[102] There are now four defamation proceedings brought against Ms Atas:

(a) Stancer Gossin Rose v. Atas (2010) (b) Peoples Trust v. Atas (2016) (c) Caplan v. Atas (2018) (d) Babcock v. Atas (2018)

[103] Only the first of these actions was listed on Schedule 1 to the Judgment. In her Response to Judgment dated April 30, 2018, Ms Atas correctly notes that the second defamation action ought to have been included on the list. The third and fourth defamation actions had not been commenced at the time the Judgment was released.

[104] There are interlocutory injunctions against Ms Atas in all four defamation proceedings. The first is an order of Strathy J. dated May 12, 2010. The others were granted by this court. Proceedings are underway before Pollak J. to cite Ms Atas for contempt of court for allegedly breaching the first three defamation orders.

Future Steps

[105] In her Response to Judgment dated April 30, 2018, para. 25, Ms Atas says that she wishes to move to set aside the interlocutory injunction granted by Strathy J. on the basis that that order contemplated and was made without prejudice to Ms Atas bringing such a motion.

[106] Ms Atas advises that she sought leave from the Divisional Court to appeal the interlocutory injunction granted in the 2016 Defamation Action, but that this motion was stayed as a result of the Judgment. She wishes to pursue this appeal to the Divisional Court.

[107] Ms Atas has not delivered Chavali requests in respect to her proposed motion respecting the 2010 injunction order or her motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

[108] The plaintiffs propose to proceed by way of motions for summary judgment and have delivered their motion materials.

Omissions

[109] The parties should appreciate that there is a large mass of materials that have been provided to the court over the past sixteen months. It may be that this summary overlooks materials. And it may be that this summary does not fully explain a party’s position on an issue. This summary is intended to describe where matters now stand, as an aid to ongoing case management. The court will permit the parties to propose changes to the attached Schedules, and to supplement the information set out in this endorsement, where to do so will assist in advancing the case management process.

D.L. Corbett J.

Released: May 29, 2019

Footnotes

[1] Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 58. [2] Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 1281, para. 15. [3] Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2019 ONCA 359. [4] I do not distinguish between Ms Atas and her company in this endorsement. [5] There seems to be some dispute about whether these were first mentioned in mid-January, or towards the end of January, a question that can be addressed at the next case conference if Ms Atas believes that it matters to some question the court may have to decide. [6] Judgment, para. 357(9). [7] Judgment, para. 344. [8] Judgment, para. 345. [9] Judgment, para. 346. [10] Judgment, para. 357(12). [11] Judgment, para. 357(13). [12] Judgment, para. 358. [13] Peoples Trust v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 1281, para. 15.