Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NOS.: various

DATE: 20200327

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Various Proceedings Involving Nadire Atas

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett J.

COUNSEL: Nadire Atas, in writing

CASE MANAGEMENT ENDORSEMENT

[1] On February 14, 2020, the court held a case management conference in these matters. As is described in the endorsement from that conference, Ms Atas was brought to the courthouse for the conference, but, at her request, was taken to hospital for medical treatment rather than attending the conference.

[2] In the endorsement arising from the case management conference of February 14, 2020, I directed as follows (among other things):

As stated above, if Ms Atas has concerns or issues to raise in respect to this case management conference, or in respect to any other issues, she may seek to schedule a case management conference through my assistant. If she does this, she should describe, in detail, her proposed agenda for the case management conference.

I do not consider it necessary to schedule a further case management conference at this time. There are no issues that can be anticipated to require case management, for the time being. If any party (including the trustee) wishes a case management conference, a request may be made to me through my assistant.

[3] We are now in the midst of the suspension of ordinary court proceedings as a result of COVID-19. The Chief Justice has directed that the court hear only urgent matters pending further directions from the Chief Justice.

[4] By email sent March 25, 2020, Ms Atas requested as follows:

… since the Courts are sort of ongoing , I would like to bring a short and simple motion ( prefer it to be in writing ) to open the motions heard by Justice Corbett that began November 15, 2019. An ex-parte affidavit would be difficult due to the lock down which seems to be getting more stringent everyday.. The following are just some of the issues I would like to include in my motion in writing :

a. A plethora of internet postings about the plaintiffs appeared on the internet dated January 3, 2020 - March 15, 2020 and certainly not by me.

b. Also, I spoke personally with Peter Racco . I was connected by his office to his cell phone while he was on his honeymoon. Peter Racco is named in Schedule " B " in the motions . Although Schedules " A " and "B " in the motions contain names of people who are dead and/or not plaintiffs to the claims, which I have already included in my submissions in Court, Peter Racco confirmed to me that he was unaware that court orders were sought in his name and that he has never heard of Gary Caplan or the law firm Mason Caplan Roti LLP and has never been contacted nor has he authorized Gary Caplan or anyone from the law firm Mason Caplan Roti LLP to seek orders on his behalf.

c. John David Coon is also named in Schedule " B " in the motions.

He is a lawyer who was out of the country after being wanted for more than 5 years and arrested August 3 , 2019 via an international flight to Vancouver . I believe he is still in custody. The Court can infer that neither Gary Caplan nor the law firm Mason Caplan Roti LLP have ever had any contact with John David Coon for the purposes of the motions began November 15, 2019.

[5] First, the courts are not “sort of ongoing”. The courts have suspended operations as a result of COVID-19, and only urgent matters are being heard, by direction of the Chief Justice.

[6] Second, the points raised by Ms Atas are not a “short and simple motion”. They appear to be a request to re-open evidence on four motions for judgment in which Ms Atas failed to file any responding evidence whatsoever. The motions did not “begin” on November 15, 2019: they began when the moving parties delivered motions materials, roughly two years ago. Final argument “began” on November 15, 2019, and was completed in December 2019. There is a stringent legal test for re-opening evidence after argument of a motion, while decision is under reserve. That motion would be neither “short” nor “simple”.

[7] Third, my direction was that, if Ms Atas has concerns or issues, she may schedule a case management conference through my assistant. I will not authorize her to bring a motion without first conducting a case management conference. If Ms Atas wishes the court to schedule a case management conference, I directed that she “describe, in detail, her proposed agenda for the case management conference”. In her email, Ms Atas states, “[t]he following are just some of the issues I would like to include in my motion….” That will not suffice: if Ms Atas wishes the court to hold a case management conference, she must describe “all” the matters she wishes to raise, not just “some” of them.

[8] The request for permission to bring a motion is denied, without prejudice to such a request being made through the case management process, as previously directed.

[9] The court will consider any request made for a case management conference during the current suspension of court operations, but will not schedule the hearing of a case management conference during the suspension unless the court is satisfied that there is urgency for the conference, within the meaning of the directions given by the Chief Justice.

[10] The court has endorsed its fiat on this endorsement this day; the unsigned version distributed to the parties today has the authority and effect of the signed version, a copy of which will be provided to the parties in due course after the suspension of ordinary court operations is lifted.

D.L. Corbett J.

Date: March 27, 2020