Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 18-CV-574948

DATE: 20190207

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Babcock v. Atas and many other actions involving Ms Atas

COUNSEL: Nadire Atas self-represented

HEARD: February 6, 2019

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

CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT

[1] By endorsement released orally on January 31, 2019, Doherty JA stayed this court’s judgment sentencing Ms Atas to six days, less time served, for contempt of court, pending Ms Atas’ appeal from that decision. The endorsement set out terms of this stay and other terms relating to matters brought by Ms Atas before the Court of Appeal.

[2] Ms Atas provided this court with a copy of Justice Doherty’s endorsement on February 1, 2019, whereupon this court cancelled Ms Atas’ appearance scheduled for February 4, 2019.

[3] In her email, Ms Atas also stated as follows:

Also, I ask for a case conference before Justice Corbett as I will be raising constitutional questions – I can be available in person or by telephone case conference any time next week.

[4] Ms Atas first raised the prospect of “raising constitutional questions” during argument of the interlocutory injunction in the proceeding Caplan v. Atas (in respect to which a separate endorsement will be released shortly). Those “constitutional questions” were not raised by Ms Atas in defence of the injunction motion, and I declined to permit her to raise case management issues after argument was completed on the injunction motion (only counsel for the moving parties was present, because the motion for an injunction did not concern other parties, and I declined to consider broader case management issues without notice to other affected parties and without prior notice to the court.

[5] Ms Atas may, of course, raise her “constitutional questions” at the next case management conference. The date for that conference will be set by this court when it releases a year’s end endorsement, summarizing all events since the judgment of January 2018 and setting out the court’s scheme for moving forward with the underlying litigation. This endorsement will not be released before the end of February, probably well into March, and I would anticipate that the next general case management conference will likely be set in April 2019.

[6] Ms Atas has not said what her “constitutional issues” are or how they bear on case management. Her request for a case management conference this week implies that she believes that there is something urgent about these issues. If Ms Atas wishes to have these issues considered at a case management conference scheduled prior to the next “regular course” case management conference, she should particularize (a) what it is she wants to do; and (b) how it bears on any of the litigation under case management, the case management process, or whether this is some fresh proceeding that Ms Atas wishes to initiate. With this information in hand the court will consider whether to schedule an earlier case management conference.

[7] Ms Atas also suggested a case management conference by telephone. Ms Atas has raised issues of reasonable apprehension of bias by this court several times, including arguments that her treatment by this court during case management conferences has reflected an apprehension of bias. In these circumstances the court is not prepared to conduct case management conferences by telephone: it is best that conferences proceed in a courtroom where the proceedings may be recorded. In saying this the court would not preclude a telephone conference in truly exigent circumstances, but there is nothing in the current request to place it within that category.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: February 7, 2019