COURT FILE NOS.: various

DATE: 20191023

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Appeal from Contempt Judgment Against Nadire Atas

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: David Conway, for Sutton Group, Trevor Schulz and Mary Ann Seonen James Bush, self-represented Nadire Atas, not appearing

CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT (SUTTON GROUP)

[1] A case management conference was held on October 4, 2019. Ms Atas did not attend. The case management conference proceeded in Ms Atas’ absence and orders and directions were made. This endorsement sets out this court’s directions respecting litigation between Ms Atas and Sutton Group (and related claims).

[2] These issues have a long history. It is not necessary to recount that history here. At the case management conference on May 31, 2019, the court directed Ms Atas to make Chavali requests for any of these claims she wishes to pursue. The court’s endorsement dated June 11, 2019, setting out these directions, states as follows:

The litigation involving Sutton Group includes three actions: two small claims court actions (12-SC-6446 and 13-SC 21972) and one Superior Court Action (14-CV-498399). Counsel for Sutton Group, Mr Conway, advises that the two small claims court actions are identical claims for $18,163.69. The Superior Court proceeding is a claim for $4 million.

Litigation between Ms Atas and Sutton Group (and related parties) has not advanced since the judgment of January 2018. If these cases are to proceed the parties must advance them promptly. Order to go as follows:

(a) Mr Conway’s client shall provide Ms Atas with complete copies of his client’s amended statements of defence in the small claims court actions, including all attachments, by June 14, 2019. Mr Conway has agreed to provide copies of the original defences in these actions, including attachments, if he has copies in his file.

(b) Ms Atas shall provide Chavali requests to the court in respect to all the Sutton Group litigation (including litigation against parties related to Sutton Group) by August 16, 2019.

If Ms Atas is not satisfied that she has received everything she believes she is entitled to from Sutton Group pursuant to this endorsement, she must still provide her Chavali requests in accordance with this endorsement: she may raise any apprehended shortcomings in disclosure by Sutton Group in her request.

Ms Atas objected to making a Chavali request of this court respecting the Sutton Group litigation because this court characterized that litigation as “peripheral” in a prior case management conference. Ms Atas declined to call this objection an allegation of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias, but said that, nonetheless, this court should not be deciding her Chavali requests because of this prior comment.

The allegation is, in substance, an allegation of reasonable apprehension of bias, and is without merit. It is based on a decontextualized characterization of a prior comment by the court – a comment that was well-founded in the context in which it was made, but which does not reflect prejudgment on the underlying merits of the Sutton Group litigation. It is another meritless argument that this court lacks jurisdiction or should recuse itself from the matters before this court.

Ms Atas should understand that if she fails to make the required Chavali requests, the court may dismiss her claims in the Sutton Group litigation at the next case management conference. (Caplan v. Atas, 2019 ONSC 3620, paras. 10-15)

[3] Ms Atas has not made any Chavali requests respecting the litigation with Sutton Group, or taken any other action to advance these cases. As will be explained in greater detail in another endorsement related to the October 4, 2019 case management conference, Ms Atas advised the court in advance that she would not attend the case management conference, that she did not intend to attend any future case management conferences, that the court could make whatever orders it wishes in her cases, but that she is not abandoning her litigation.

[4] Ms Atas has failed to follow this court’s directions to move these cases forward. Whatever her subjective intent, she has abandoned her litigation by conduct. She has also breached multiple court orders and refused to follow the processes directed by this court to move forward with her cases.

[5] Order to go dismissing all claims against James Bush and Devonsleigh Paralegal Services in CV-14-498399, with costs to Mr Bush and Devonsleigh of $2500 + 363.89 disbursements, inclusive, payable by Ms Atas within 30 days; I have signed the order.

[6] The actions involving Sutton Group are all dismissed, including any counterclaims and third party claims: CV-14-498399, SC-12-6446 and SC-13-21972. These are all dismissed without costs: Sutton Group and its related parties elected to incur minimal costs during the case management process, with the result that the court did not have any assistance from them in bringing these matters to a conclusion (as contrasted with Mr Bush, who did pursue these matters within case management and was of assistance in so doing). Sutton Group shall prepare dismissal orders in these three actions and send them to me for signature by October 18, 2019.

[7] These orders will have the effect of dismissing all claims in the referenced proceedings, including the claims against Reginald Bent.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: October 23, 2019