Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00662130-00CL and CV-21-00667377-00CL DATE: 20231004 ONTARIO - SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – COMMERCIAL LIST

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 248 OF THE BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. B-16

Court File No. CV-21-00662130-00CL RE: Devad Seferovic (also known as Alex Seferovic), Reza Abedi and Rodolphe Najm, Applicants AND: 285 Spadina SPV Inc., Ronald Hitti (also known as Rony Hitti) and Raja Farah, Respondents

Court File No. CV-21-00667377-00CL RE: 2356802 Ontario Corp., Applicant AND: 285 Spadina SPV Inc. and Ronald Hitti (also known as Ronny Hitti), Respondents

BEFORE: Peter J. Osborne J.

COUNSEL: John Ormston, for the Applicants Devad Seferovic, Reza Abedi and Rodolphe Najm Nicolas Canizares, for the Applicant 2356802 Ontario Corp. Adam J. Wygodny, for the Respondent Raja Farah Ronald Hitti, self-represented

HEARD: September 19, 2023

Endorsement

1. The Applicants in this oppression remedy Application bring this motion for an order declaring the Respondent, Ronald Hitti, to be a vexatious litigant and for related relief as more particularly described below.

2. Mr. Hitti was self-represented on this motion. A court reporter was present. Also present with the consent of the parties was Mr. Canizares, who represents various landlords and related companies in a companion proceeding. These two proceedings are referred to by the parties, and from time to time on various motions by the Court, as: the “oppression proceeding” and the “lease proceeding” respectively.

3. These matters have a lengthy and complex history. The materials filed on this motion were voluminous and comprised hundreds of pages. While I have reviewed all of the materials, I have placed particular emphasis on those materials relied upon by the parties in their written and oral submissions.

4. To state that the proceedings have been acrimonious would be an understatement.

Relief Sought

5. The Applicants move pursuant to section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, which provides in relevant part that where a judge of this Court is satisfied that a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings in any court; or conducted a proceeding in any court in a vexatious manner, that no further proceeding be instituted by the person in any court; or that a proceeding previously instituted by the person in any court not be continued, except by leave.

6. In the alternative, the Applicants seek an order pursuant to Rule 37.16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure prohibiting Mr. Hitti from making any further motions in this proceeding without leave. That Rule provides that on motion by any party, a judge or associate judge may by order prohibit another party from making further motions in the proceeding without leave, where satisfied that the other party is attempting to delay or add to the cost of the proceeding or otherwise abuse the process of the court by a multiplicity of frivolous or vexatious motions.

7. Finally, the Applicants seek an order compelling Mr. Hitti to attend for an examination in aid of execution with respect to his unpaid costs awards made in this Application and described below.

The Test

8. There has been much judicial consideration of s. 140 of the CJA, which derived from the Vexatious Proceedings Act. Conduct that has been determined by the courts to be such as to warrant a vexatious litigant order pursuant to this provision includes the following:

   a. the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction; b. the bringing or continuing of an action where it is obvious that the action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief; c. actions brought or continued for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights; d. the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the cost of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered; e. it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings; and f. the persistent taking of unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can be considered to be vexatious conduct: Lang Michener v. Fabian (1987), 59 O.R. (2d) 353 (H.C.J.), at para. 20; Lazi Ventures Inc. v. Carter, 2023 ONSC 578, at para. 30. See also, Wilson v. Fatahi-Ghandehari, 2023 ONCA 74, at para. 10 and Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720, at para. 20.

9. The Court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action: Lang Michener, supra.

10. The test applied to Rule 37.16 is similar, although the scope of the Rule is narrower than the scope of s. 140: Son v. Khan, 2017 ONSC 962, at para. 26.; Evans v. Snieg, 2019 ONSC 7270, at para. 32. In Direk v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2011 ONSC 6375, this Court noted that the factors described above in the context of vexatious litigant orders apply equally to a Rule 37.16 motion with appropriate alteration (particularly the substitution of the word “motions” for “actions””. (See paras. 7 and 8).

11. In that case, what the Court described as a “mini vexatious litigant order” was made where a party brought “a multiplicity of frivolous and vexatious motions” in order to “delay the proceedings or otherwise abuse the process of the court”.

12. The Applicants submit that this is exactly what Mr. Hitti has done in this case.

13. I accept that submission and am satisfied that the conduct of Mr. Hitti in this litigation comes well within the parameters of the conduct that has been held by this Court to be vexatious.

14. A review of the chronology of events in this matter explains why I reach this conclusion.

Relevant Chronology of Events

15. This matter has been before the Court and has resulted in decisions being rendered many times already.

16. This Application (the oppression application) and the lease application were heard together by Kimmel, J. On February 17 and 18, 2022, resulting in Reasons for Decision dated April 25, 2022. Mr. Hitti is the principal of the corporate respondent.

17. Following the hearing of this Application, Kimmel, J. determined that the Applicants were beneficial owners of the business enterprise, and that the Respondent 285 Spadina SPV Inc. (“285 Spadina”) was the only operating company in the business enterprise.

18. The Court determined that the powers of the Respondents had been exercised in a manner that was oppressive to the Applicants. However, the Court also determined that certain relief sought, including an order removing Mr. Hitti as a director and officer of 285 Spadina, was premature pending an accounting and tracing, both of which were ordered by the Court.

19. Finally, the Court ordered Respondents to pay to the Applicants costs of $45,000.

20. The retainer of the accountant to conduct the accounting was the subject of subsequent Court attendances on June 2, July 7 and September 21, 2022. The Applicants paid their portion of the retainer by September 21, 2022. The Respondents requested at the September 21, 2022 Court attendance an additional two or three weeks to come up with the funds for their 50% portion of the retainer for the accountant. The Court granted that request and the Respondents were ordered to pay their 50% portion by October 10, 2020.

21. That was not paid by the date ordered, or at all. Nor has the order for costs of $45,000 been paid.

22. As a result, the Court ordered at the September 21, 2022 attendance that the Respondents were not permitted to schedule or proceed with their proposed Rule 59 motion “or take any other steps in this proceeding (except in respect of the accounting and tracing exercise that was ordered]” unless and until some arrangement was made with respect to the payment of the award for costs. No arrangement has ever been made.

23. At the September 16, 2022 attendance in the related application referred to above, the Court ordered that there was no basis upon which the tenant, the Respondent in this application, 285 Spadina, could unilaterally withhold the payment of rent arrears (or rent owing thereafter) which the Court had ordered to be paid by Reasons for Decision released August 12, 2022.

24. Neither the rent arrears, nor any rent for subsequent months, has been paid by 285 Spadina, notwithstanding the directions of the Court made on August 12 and September 16, 2022.

25. This Court then heard two motions on November 25 and December 5, 2022, respectively. First, the Respondents Mr. Hitti and 285 Spadina (the corporation of which Mr. Hitti was at that time of the directing mind) brought a motion pursuant to Rule 59.06 to file fresh evidence in respect of the decisions dated April 25 and August 12, 2022. They also asked the Court to vary those previous rulings.

26. These motions were brought by the Respondents notwithstanding the fact that the $45,000 costs award remained unpaid and notwithstanding the order dated September 21, 2022 referred to above to the effect that the Respondents were not permitted to take any other steps until some arrangement was made with respect to the payment of costs.

27. Second, the landlord brought a motion to terminate the lease.

28. By Endorsement released December 29, 2022, Kimmel, J. dismissed the fresh evidence motion of the Respondents and granted the motion of the landlord to terminate the lease.

29. Mr. Hitti then brought an urgent motion seeking a stay of all orders that had been made in this proceeding on the basis that he was suffering from long Covid when he was preparing for the initial applications, and on various other bases, including his submission that the proceeding constituted a breach of his rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.

30. That motion originally came on before me by way of a case conference for scheduling. I determined that Mr. Hitti should have the right to have his urgent motion heard, but I declined to grant any other interim relief, including in particular any interim stay of the motion then pending and already scheduled to be heard for an order removing Mr. Hitti from the day-to-day carriage of the respondent 285 Spadina.

31. In my view, my Endorsement from that case conference dated January 20, 2023 is relevant to this motion and it is appended to this decision as Schedule “A” hereto.

32. That motion was heard and dismissed by Kimmel, J. On February 3, 2023, Mr. Hitti was ordered to pay $7500 to the Applicants and the landlord. Those amounts have not been paid.

33. On February 13, 2023, Steele, J. granted the motion of the Applicants to remove Mr. Hitti as an officer and director of 285 Spadina and to appoint the Applicants as directors in his place. Mr. Hitti was ordered to pay costs, yet again, this time in the amount of $15,000. Those costs have not been paid.

34. Mr. Hitti then submitted to the Commercial List Office a chambers motion request form seeking to schedule additional motions, including another motion brought pursuant to Rule 59, a motion for equitable set off and a motion for an interim stay of proceedings. New claims were advanced that his rights under the Charter and the Bill of Rights continued to be infringed.

35. Mr. Hitti then filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeal for Ontario on March 4, 2023 seeking to appeal the decision of Kimmel, J. dated February 3, 2023 dismissing his stay motion.

36. On March 16, 2023, Penny, J. denied Mr. Hitti’s request to schedule five additional motions in this proceeding. Those motions included yet another request for a stay of proceedings, and a motion to remove counsel to the Applicants, Mr. Ormston.

37. In his Endorsement of that date, Penny, J. observed that: “there is a long, torturous history to these proceedings. Kimmel, J. alone has issued at least 10 substantial decisions in this matter within the last year.” He further observed that: “after carefully reviewing the material filed, and all of the prior decisions put in issue, I decline to schedule any of Mr. Hitti’s motions. They are all, on their face, ill-conceived, doomed to fail and/or a form of abuse of the court’s process.” He went on to conclude that Mr. Hitti was making futile attempts to relitigate matters, that the time for arguments about deferral of payment of costs (the $45,000) was long past and “the concept underlying the proposed motion (“equitable set off”) is, on its face, entirely devoid of merit. The order for costs was made. They must be paid. This proposed motion is a patent abuse of the court’s process.”

38. Finally, Penny, J. concluded that Mr. Hitti’s proposed new Rule 59 motion was simply another attempt to devise new arguments to avoid the obligations that he and 285 Spadina were found to have and that “this further attempt to bring yet another Rule 59 motion about the same decision is another patent abuse of process.”

39. On March 25, 2023, Mr. Hitti wrote to counsel for the Applicants and threatened to file a complaint against them with the Law Society of Ontario based on his allegation that Applicants’ counsel had engaged in a “pattern of dishonourable and questionable conduct”.

40. On March 29, 2023, Mr. Hitti set about to schedule yet further or additional motions for relief that has already been considered by the Court and refused, including an order setting aside the April 25, 2022 decision of Kimmel, J. and an order varying a decision of Perell, J. made March 25, 2020, on the basis of fraud. Additional relief based yet again on equitable set off and relief from forfeiture, was also sought. The court form submitted by Mr. Hitti in his effort to schedule these motions accused the landlord of criminal conduct and accused counsel for the Applicants of professional misconduct.

41. Mr. Hitti then scheduled an appearance, on an ex parte basis, through the Commercial List office on March 31, 2023 seeking injunctive relief. At a case conference on April 6, 2023, Steele, J. refused that request and advised Mr. Hitti that he ought not to have sought to bring the motion on an ex parte basis when he was well aware that all parties were represented by counsel, describing the proposed motion as “yet another piecemeal, repetitive attempt to relitigate matters already decided”.

42. I pause to observe that with the exception of the decision of Kimmel, J. dated April 25, 2022, none of the orders referred to above (including for certainty the numerous unpaid costs orders) has been appealed.

43. Mr. Hitti was served with a Notice of Examination in aid of execution on April 3, 2023, returnable on April 20. Despite acknowledging acceptance of service (on the same date) he failed to attend for the examination. He did, however, write to counsel for the Applicants on the date scheduled for the examination, April 20, 2023. That correspondence is sufficiently important to this motion that I have reproduced it in full:

    “Messrs. Canizares and Ormston,

    Much to Mr. Canizares’ bigoted mercantile chagrin, Mr. Ormston’s self righteous fraudulent dismay, and your fatuous clients’ malicious ambitions of social relevance and unjust enrichment; earlier today, my respirology specialist since 2018 Dr. Owen Lyons (credentials in the link), shared with me the long awaited (blame OHIP) letter concerning my impairment / incapacity during the Companion Proceedings which arose from severe OSA, exacerbated and complicated by Long Covid.

    To make matters worse for you, I have compiled the evidence of prior knowledge by Mr. Canizares and Mr. Seferovic of my medical condition, and your cabal’s reliance on (1) my infirmity; (2) your collective premeditated, deliberate, and malicious acts of discrimination, (3) your perjurious affidavits; (4) civil fraud by the applicants and counsel, (5) subterfuge by all, (6) and bad faith in general, in furtherance of your conspiracy to harass, defame, coerce, extort, impoverish, and defraud the respondents by way of the unlawful use of the civil justice system, among other Torts and Crimes.

    Although the forgoing may initially seem fantastical, bordering on delusional to the casual observer – unfortunately for you, as you will find out very soon, the Truth - corroborated by the passage of time, a compilation of your inane hubris and conduct, evidence of your own generous unwitting offering, facts and documents you thought concealed or buried, and new firsthand witness attestations - has proven itself very persuasive even to the most adamant of skeptics.

    Lest you believe that an existing or yet another Kimmel J. Order will come to your rescue again; disconcerting but conclusive evidence has also been compiled that a reasonable Apprehension of her Honour’s Bias exists, and that such has unfortunately metastasized as res judicata fact on the commercial list – cause and intent of her Honour’s obvious predisposition are entirely extraneous, but I speculate that the Court was simply duped by fraudsters masquerading as lawyers.

    Have no doubt that the day of reckoning I promised you last summer has come, and you shall pay for your depravity in every lawful way imaginable for the rest of your lives, and where applicable, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law.

    This email is not intended a threat, nor a ploy to gain leverage for negotiating, settlement, or any other purpose - there is nothing to negotiate or settle - Mr. Ormston’s recent disgraceful attempt to defame and insult my mother closed that door forever, and amplified the hell I will be visiting upon you for taking advantage of my ill health, for your cowardly and execrable characters, and especially for your crimes - mitigating your ominous fate lies only, in your prompt and unconditional allocutions, genuine contrition, and your pleadings for mercy.

    Sincerely,

    Rony Hitti

44. In my view, such correspondence is wholly inconsistent with the expectations of this court for litigants (including, lest there be any doubt, self-represented litigants).

45. Indeed, the conduct of Mr. Hitti in these proceedings, certain highlights of which have been summarized above, come well within the conduct that this Court has previously described as being vexatious.

46. Mr. Hitti filed no evidence on this motion but did file a factum and an aide memoire. Among other submissions he made, Mr. Hitti submitted that he wished to attack the decision of Kimmel, J. as “a civil fraud” and submitted that it was profoundly unfair that he was denied the ability to schedule his proposed Rule 59 motion until he paid the outstanding award of costs. Most fundamentally, he submitted repeatedly that this amounted to a denial of justice.

47. Mr. Hitti submitted that if I granted any relief in respect of this motion he would immediately appeal, and that any direction that he not be permitted to appeal such an order would amount to conduct that was “unconscionable”.

48. Asked about the accusations he made against counsel for the Applicants, Mr. Hitti did not resile at all from any of them (including the letter reproduced above) but instead reiterated them, confirming that he was accusing counsel for the Applicants of wrongdoing and that the “justice system protects its own”.

49. For all of the above reasons, I conclude that Mr. Hitti is a vexatious litigant within the meaning of s. 140 and so declare. I also grant the order sought pursuant to Rule 37.16. The relief sought in the Notice of Motion is granted.

50. The Applicants seek costs in accordance with the bill of costs filed in the amount of $8903.50 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.

51. Exercising my discretion under s. 131 of the CJA, and considering the factors enumerated in Rule 57.01, in my view an appropriate award of costs in this matter is $6500 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST. Such amount is to be paid by Mr. Hitti within 30 days.

52. Order to go in accordance with these reasons.

Osborne J.

SCHEDULE “A”

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COUNSEL SLIP / ENDORSEMENT

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00662130-00CL and CV-21-00667377- 00CL DATE: 20 January 2023 NO. ON LIST: 2+3 TITLE OF PROCEEDING: Devad Seferovic et al v 285 Spadina SPV Inc. et al 2356802 Ontario Corp. v Hitti et al

BEFORE JUSTICE: OSBORNE J

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

For Plaintiff, Applicant, Moving Party, Crown:

Name of Person Appearing	Name of Party	Contact Info
CANIZARES, NICOLAS	2356802 ONTARIO CORP	equinoxgroup@bellnet.ca
ORMSTON, JOHN PATRICK	SEFEROVIC, DEVAD, ABEDI, REZA, NAJM, RODOLPHE	jormston@olflaw.com

For Defendant, Respondent, Responding Party, Defence:

Name of Person Appearing	Name of Party	Contact Info
WYGODNY, ADAM JARED	285 SPADINA SPV INC., FARAH, RAJA	awygodny@groiaco.com
UNREPRESENTED	HITTI, RONALD	rony@boagroup.ca

ENDORSEMENT OF JUSTICE OSBORNE:

1. This case conference was requested, and proceeded, in respect of the above-noted two proceedings. It was requested by Mr. Ronald (Roni) Hitti, who is a personal Respondent in each proceeding. Mr. Hitti is self represented. A court reporter was present. Defined terms in this Endorsement have the meaning given to them in the motion materials and prior Endorsements unless otherwise indicated.

2. Mr. Hitti seeks the urgent scheduling of a motion for a stay of proceedings, in both Applications (referred to in the materials as the Oppression Proceeding, being Court File No. CV-21- 00662130-00CL, and the Lease Proceeding, being Court File No. CV-21-00667377-00CL). He also seek an interim stay pending the hearing of the stay motion.

3. In particular, Mr. Hitti sought this case conference, and seeks to bring his stay motions, on an urgent basis to stay a motion already scheduled before Justice Kimmel to be heard on February 9, 2023 for an order removing Mr. Hitti from the day-to-day carriage of 285 Spadina SPV Inc. and to stay the decision of Justice Kimmel dated December 29, 2022.

4. Justice Kimmel heard the Oppression Proceeding and the Lease Proceeding on February 17 and 18, 2022 and released Reasons for Decision in each matter dated April 25, 2022.

5. On November 25 and December 5, 2022, Justice Kimmel heard a motion by Mr. Hitti for leave pursuant to Rule 59.06 to file fresh evidence in respect of Justice Kimmel’s April 25, 2022 decision in the Lease Proceeding and a subsequent lease determination decision of August 12, 2022, and a motion of the Landlord for leave to terminate the SPV Lease.

6. By decision dated December 29, 2022 (referred to above) Justice Kimmel ordered that Mr. Hitti’s Rule 59.06 motion is dismissed, the landlord’s motion for leave is granted but the relief sought by the Landlord’s motion is stayed pending the hearing of the motion in the Oppression Proceeding scheduled for February, 2023, on conditions.

7. Today, Mr. Hitti seeks the urgent scheduling of the stay motions on the basis, essentially, that at and around the time of the hearing of the Applications before Justice Kimmel in February, 2022, he was suffering from “foggy brain” arising from “long Covid”, with the result that:

   a. he was a party under disability; b. his interests ought to have been represented by a Litigation Guardian appointed pursuant to Rule 7; c. Counsel for opposing parties in those Applications knew or ought to have known of this disability but chose to do nothing about it; and d. the Court ought to have been aware of his disability;

   all with the result that the decisions and orders resulting from those Applications ought to be stayed.

8. Mr. Hitti maintains these positions notwithstanding that at no time until now has he sought to stay the orders made in those Applications. Neither have the orders been appealed.

9. To be clear, Mr. Hitti maintains that the period of his disability extended from mid 2021 until September 8, 2022, after which date he was not under any disability.

10. Mr. Hitti relies by way of medical or clinical evidence as to his cognitive impairment and disability on three documents to which he drew my attention.

11. The first two are said to be excerpted from his University Health Network clinical chart and in particular notes from one admission of 02/06/21 and notes from a second admission of 12/11/21. Mr. Hitti submits that these amount to clinical medical evidence that he has cognitive impairment as they state: “CAM +ve Criteria: “YES” to Acute + Fluctuating + Inattention”. The Responding parties point out in the same documents, the Overall CAM (confusion assessment method) as “negative” [CaseLines B-1-8742/3].

12. The third document on which Mr. Hitti relies is a letter dated May 26, 2022 “to whom it may concern” from Dr. Diana Hsiang. That letter states that Mr. Hitti has been a patient of WCH Family Practice Health Team since 2016 and that he was receiving active medical care between June 2021 to February 2022 “for multiple medical conditions. Several of these contributed to his development of hyper-capnic respiratory failure”. After explaining that this required two admissions to TGH, it goes on to state that Mr. Hitti underwent bariatric surgery in Montréal on January 12, 2022. Finally, it states that “on review of his chart from family practice during this time [June 2021 – February 2022] he reported multiple symptoms, including chronic fatigue…. non-specific dizziness, brain fog and a lack of motivation” [CaseLines B-1-9112].

13. Mr. Hitti submits today that as of September 8, 2022, he was feeling better and had no cognitive impairment or disability, but that he has been waiting to schedule a sleep study and that has not yet taken place.

14. He places great reliance emphasis on both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. His position is that he is entitled to “equal protection under the law” and interprets this in the circumstances as imposing “rights for the disabled” and the obligation on opposing parties to not take any step in a proceeding where a respondent is under a disability and does not have a litigation guardian.

15. Finally, he submits that the fact that certain steps in the proceedings [and in particular the hearing of the Applications last February] violate the Charter and the Bill of Rights since they constituted a violation of his right to equal treatment without discrimination based on his disability.

16. Counsel for the other parties represented today oppose the scheduling of any stay motions as well as the imposition of any interim relief. They take the position that, in all the circumstances, these motions are brought for tactical reasons to delay the implementation and effect of earlier decisions made in these proceedings, and in particular the decisions of Justice Kimmel made on April 25, 2022 and December 29, 2022. They emphasize the observation of Justice Kimmel at paragraph 46 of the December 29, 2022 endorsement as to the respondents devising new arguments to avoid the obligations that they are found to have.

17. Moreover, they argue that nothing has changed, and that as reflected at paragraph 72 of the December 29, 2022 endorsement, the alleged cognitive impairment at the time of the creation of the evidentiary record, was before the court on that date and there is no new evidence in the record.

18. Their position is that these documents themselves are not determinative of the conclusions that Mr. Hitti asks the Court to draw, and that that none of these documents amounts to objective evidence that at the relevant time, Mr. Hitti was under a disability such that a litigation guardian was required, let alone that they ought to have known that. Finally, they submit that he has had five months, since September 8, 2022 to obtain a medical opinion to support his position and yet has failed to do so.

19. I am of the view that Mr. Hitti has the right at least to have his motion heard. That said, I am concerned, as I have advised him today, about the tardiness and timing of the request for a stay, the apparent absence of any steps having been taken over the last few months, and all of this in the factual matrix of these proceedings. I observe that there is no current or new medical or clinical evidence to support Mr. Hitti’s submissions and indeed there is no clear evidence from any treating physician by way of affidavit or report as to his being a party under disability at the relevant time period. Still, I am prepared to give him an opportunity to file evidence in support of his request for these stays.

20. In the result, therefore, the Court has made available on an urgent basis time for the hearing of these stay motions on January 27, 2023 commencing at 12 PM noon for one hour. They will be heard at that time.

21. Mr. Hitti has confirmed that his motion materials are ready to go and he has requested until 4:30 PM on January 24 to serve and file those materials and I so order. Responding materials if any are to be served and filed by 12 PM noon on January 26.

22. I decline to grant any other interim relief beyond giving Mr. Hitti the right to have this motion heard, and heard before the pending motion already scheduled for February 9.

23. In particular, I decline to grant any interim stay of the pending motion scheduled for February 9, or any interim stay in respect of these two Applications generally. I have advised Mr. Hitti today, expressly and repeatedly, that that motion for February 9 remains scheduled to proceed on the merits, and will proceed on February 9, subject to any order that may be made by the judge hearing the stay motion on January 27. To be very clear, Mr. Hitti should be preparing for that motion of February 9 on the basis that it will proceed.

24. I have strongly advised Mr. Hitti to obtain counsel to assist him. He has advised the Court that he has already spoken with new counsel with a view to retaining them and will be meeting with them imminently.