Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: various DATE: 20190715 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] In this endorsement I finalize the form of 14 dismissal orders and one additional order made at the case management conference of May 31, 2019 and give other directions concerning these matters under case management.

Background

[2] The orders in question were made at the case management conference of May 31, 2019. They were reflected in the endorsement for that conference, released June 12 2019 (2019 ONSC 3620). To be clear, however, all of the orders were made on May 31st, in the presence of the parties, and were reflected in handwritten endorsements made that day.

[3] Mr Caplan provided draft orders on June 19, 2019.

[4] Ms Atas purported to provide her comments on the form of the orders but, as reflected in a further endorsement from the court, her comments were improper and vexatious (2019 ONSC 3956). I gave her a second chance to make any comments she had about the form of the orders. She provided a second submission on July 2, 2019. This too was improper and vexatious (2019 ONSC 4138). I advised the parties that I would finalize the draft orders on the basis of those provided by Mr Caplan, Ms Atas having chosen not to make proper submissions on the form of the orders, but rather to argue (repeatedly) about whether the orders ought to have been made at all, and/or whether the court is biased or has somehow misconducted itself.

(a) Signed Orders

[5] I have signed 13 draft orders submitted by Mr Caplan, and he should arrange with my assistant to pick them up to have them issued and entered. There were the following issues with the draft orders:

a. Counsel advises that proceeding 05-CV-302736 has not been dismissed (a point that was not clear on May 31, 2019). On the basis of counsel’s advice that the action has not been dismissed previously, I signed the dismissal order submitted for this action. b. I have not yet signed the order in 14-CV-515899. The form of the order is satisfactory, except that a copy of Schedule “A” to the order was not included in the copy provided to me. Counsel will arrange to have a copy of the schedule sent to my assistant for inclusion in the order, whereupon I will sign the order. c. The title of proceedings in the draft order for 09-CV-391695 (Atas v. Kimberley) shows the plaintiffs as being represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”). I understand that the PGT was removed as litigation guardian for Ms Atas in all proceedings in which it has been appointed by order of Stinson J. Counsel should either re-draft this order and re-submit it for signature, or explain to me why the order is properly styled in the name of the PGT. d. Ms Atas claims in her improper submissions that some of the proceedings dismissed on May 31st have been dismissed already. This was not consistent with her prior written submissions and was the first time she had raised this particular issue in respect to the proceedings in question. I have issued the dismissal orders on the basis on which they were granted on May 31st. If it turns out that any of the proceedings had already been dismissed, then any concerns the parties have about the proceedings being dismissed twice may be raised at the next case management conference.

[6] Mr Caplan shall send a copy of the orders to Ms Atas by email once they have been issued and entered.

(b) Improper Communications

[7] Ms Atas has used the opportunity to provide submissions on the form of orders to make improper communications to the court. I have addressed this issue in two prior endorsements (2019 ONSC 3956 and 2019 ONSC 4138). In the latter endorsement I directed Ms Atas to cease her communications with the court on these issues, without prejudice to her raising these issues at the next case management conference scheduled in September 2019.

[8] Following this direction, Ms Atas communicated with counsel about these issues, in brief, taking the position with counsel that they should be addressing the concerns that this court directed not be raised again prior to the next case management conference. In making her arguments to counsel, Ms Atas alleged improprieties by the court, and alleged impropriety by counsel in failing to pursue these issues themselves.

[9] Counsel, in the face of this communication, felt it important to bring the communications to this court’s attention.

[10] Counsel should not act as a conduit between Ms Atas and the court in this way: it simply aids a vexatious litigant to accomplish indirectly that which she has been precluded from doing directly. To support counsel on this point, this court orders that:

a. Counsel should not report to this court, outside the case management process, about steps or activities taken by Ms Atas unless, in counsel’s opinion, there is an urgent need for counsel to put the matter before this court before the next case management conference. b. Counsel need not respond at all to these sorts of communications sent to them by Ms Atas, outside the case management process, and no adverse inference shall be drawn by counsel doing nothing pending the next case management conference.

[11] Any concerns or questions about these directions may be raised at the next case management conference.

(c) Transcripts for Appeal from Contempt Findings and Sentence

[12] Ms Atas was ordered to advise this court of the status of her outstanding transcripts for her contempt appeal pending in the Court of Appeal (2019 ONSC 3620, paras. 43-44). In her improper submission of July 2, 2019, Ms Atas advised that she still did not have transcripts. I provided a further direction to Ms Atas on this topic: 2019 ONSC 4138, paras. 9-11. This direction provided a deadline for Ms Atas to provide further information to this court: July 12, 2019, 5:00 pm. Ms Atas has failed to comply with this direction.

[13] Ms Atas shall, immediately, forward to my assistant the most recent communication she has made to the transcriptionist seeking the status of the transcripts, and a copy of any reply she received to that inquiry. If Ms Atas fails to comply with this direction, she should expect to be required to show cause at the next regular case management conference why she should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with 2019 ONSC 4138, paras. 9-11 and this endorsement.

(d) Defence in the Babcock Action

[14] At the case management conference of May 31, 2019, I ordered Ms Atas to file her defence in the Babcock action by July 5, 2019, and to provide this court with a copy of her defence also by July 5, 2019: 2019 ONSC 3620. Ms Atas has not provided the court with a copy of this pleading, in violation of the court’s direction.

[15] If Ms Atas has not filed her defence then the plaintiffs may requisition that she be noted in default in the Babcock action. If Ms Atas has filed her defence, she shall immediately provide a copy of it to my assistant, and should expect to be required to explain why she did not comply with the court’s direction to provide this document by July 5th.

D.L. Corbett J. Date: July 15, 2019