Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: DATE: 20190705 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Caplan v. Atas and numerous other proceedings involving Nadire Atas

COUNSEL: Nadire Atas self-represented Gary Caplan for the Moving Parties

HEARD: In Writing

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J. (In Chambers, In Writing)

CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT

[1] By endorsement dated June 26, 2019, I gave Ms Atas a second chance to provide comments respecting the form of draft orders prepared by Mr Caplan for orders made at the May 31, 2019 case management conference, as reflected in my endorsement of June 12, 2019 (2019 ONSC 3620). My direction to Ms Atas on June 26th was as follows:

If Ms Atas has concerns about the form and content of any of the draft orders, she may provide her own draft orders, blacklined to show the changes she proposes to the drafts provided by Mr Caplan, with explanations or her disagreements where those explanations are not evident simply on a reading of the proposed changes. She shall provide these by 5 pm, July 2, 2019. The court will then settle the orders on the basis of the materials provided by July 2nd. As explained above, the court will not entertain arguments about whether the orders ought to have been made; those arguments were heard and decided on May 31st and may not be revisited during the process of settling the orders.

[2] Ms Atas did deliver materials by email on July 2nd. They do not, however, comply with the direction of June 26, 2019. Rather, they are a ten page set of arguments on various topics, none of which relate to the form of the orders drafted by Mr Caplan.

[3] This is improper. The orders have been made. The issue is whether the drafts prepared by Mr Caplan accurately reflect the orders made. Instead, Ms Atas wishes to contest the propriety of the orders. And in her materials delivered on July 2nd she apparently wishes to pursue allegations of bias against this court and bring some sort of motion.

[4] This too is wholly improper. Ms Atas had an opportunity to raise her issues on May 31st at the case management conference. She did not raise these issues then. There is nothing urgent about them, and no reason apparent in her materials for her failure to raise these issues in May. And further, she makes increasingly wild allegations about proceedings at case management conferences, apparently to avoid this court’s orders respecting her ability to obtain non-essential transcripts of case management conferences. These tactics will not avail Ms Atas.

[5] In my endorsement of June 26th I characterized Ms Atas’ first submissions on the form and content of the draft orders as vexatious. Ms Atas repeats her allegations in the submission delivered July 2nd. This repetition is doubly vexatious: first, substantively the submissions are vexatious for the reasons I expressed in my endorsement of June 26th. Second, the submissions are directly defiant of my endorsement of June 26th.

[6] Ms Atas attached three draft orders to her submission (in files 08-CV-349206PD3, 07-CV-343745PD1 and 08-CV-354613). She did not black-line her drafts as had been directed. In the operative paragraph of her draft orders she proposes language staying these actions. That is not what was ordered; the actions were ordered dismissed.

[7] I will finalize the orders on the basis of the drafts prepared by Mr Caplan; Ms Atas is not to communicate with the court further on this topic.

[8] Ms Atas may raise any of the issues she describes in her submission of July 2, 2019 at the next regularly scheduled case management conference, in September, 2019. She shall not communicate further on these issues with the court prior to making submissions on agenda items for the next case management conference, and then not until the court requests such submissions from the parties.

[9] At paras. 43-44 of my endorsement of June 12, 2019, I directed as follows:

Ms Atas advised me by email and again during the case management conference that Tulloch J.A. has extended Ms Atas’ time to perfect her appeal from my finding of contempt against her and the sentence imposed for that contempt until sometime after delivery of certain transcripts. Ms Atas advised me that she had been advised by the transcriptionist that this process was now awaiting my approval for release of the transcripts. This came as a surprise to me: Doherty J.A. made an order for production of these transcripts, and I did not realize that anything was required from me in respect to this matter.

After the case management conference I checked and learned that draft transcripts had been prepared, and that these were apparently awaiting my review. I obtained them and reviewed them. Certified transcripts should be provided to Ms Atas shortly; if she does not have them by June 27, 2019, Ms Atas is directed to so notify my assistant, by email, explaining her understanding of the reasons for any continuing delay.

[10] In her submissions of July 2, 2019, Ms Atas states as follows:

I am still waiting for judicial release of the transcripts that were submitted to Justice Corbett in mid April 2019.

[11] As I indicated in para. 44 of my endorsement of June 12, 2019, I have reviewed the transcripts, and they should have been released to Ms Atas by now. Ms Atas does not explain why she is “still waiting for judicial review of the transcripts”. Ms Atas shall forthwith email the court transcriptionist to inquire about the status of the transcripts. She shall forward a copy of her email and the response she receives to it to my assistant immediately upon receipt of a response. If she has not received a response by July 12, 2019, she shall, by 5:00 pm that day, forward a copy of her email to my assistant, and my office will follow up with transcriptionist.

[12] I wish to be clear that I have reviewed Ms Atas’ submission of July 2nd solely for the purpose of settling the orders made at the case management conference on May 31, 2019, as reflected in my endorsement of June 12, 2019. I have disregarded content that is not relevant to settling the orders, aside from the sentence related to transcript delays. Opposing parties need not respond to anything Ms Atas has said in the submission, since it is not properly before the court except in relation to settling the form of the orders.

[13] Finally, I wish to emphasize once again that Ms Atas is to obey this court’s orders respecting improper communications with the court. It is crystal-clear that Ms Atas is using the opportunity to address a very specific issue (form and content of orders) to communicate improperly with the court. If this conduct is repeated, I will dispense with Ms Atas’ approval as to form and content of orders in future, a step often taken with litigants who use the order approval process to re-litigate or delay litigation.

"original signed by D.L. Corbett J."

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: July 5, 2019