CITATION: Peoples Trust Company v. Atas, 2026 ONSC 4668
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-515899
DATE: 20260812
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
PEOPLES TRUST COMPANY, DAVID
BROOKER, TARAS KULISH, MOSES
MUYAL, MICHAEL HAROLD
KIMBERLY, STANCER GOSSIN ROSE,
BLAIR COLEMAN ROSE, RAYMOND
STANCER, MITCHELL HART ROSE,
ROSE AND ROSE, BLAIR COLEMAN
ROSE, SCOTT KELLY, RON HATCHER,
STEINBERG MORTON FRYMER LLP,
RAHUL SHASTRI, IRA T. KAGAN,
DAVID WINER, DAVID SLOAN, BAKER
SCHNEIDER RUGGIERO, PATRICE
COTE, MICHAEL JOHN MITCHELL,
NICHOLAS CARLOS CANIZARES,
DAVID HART, BRESVER
SCHEININGER & CHAPMAN LLP, RUI
RUIVO, FRANL PA, ATLANTIC (HS0
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, TOM
PIRES, MEGACORP, KRISHNAN
CHAHAL and NUTAN CHAHAL
Applicants
- and -
NADIRE ATAS and 626381 ONTARIO
Ms Atas, self-represented
LIMITED
Respondents / Requesting Party
In Writing; In Chambers[1]
ENDORSEMENT
D.L. Corbett J.
[1] Ms Atas has made a series of requests for transcripts of appearances before me in her litigation that took place between 2014-2021. By my count, she has thus far asked for 45 transcripts to be prepared from appearances before me.
[2] No reason was given for these requests. All the request forms state that the transcripts are not for the purposes of an appeal.
[3] Ms Atas is a vexatious litigant who engaged in a prolonged malicious campaign of internet harassment against a broad range of victims numbering over 150 by the time she was found liable for the tort of internet harassment in 2021. Included in her online campaign were fabricated newspaper articles and multiple deliberate malicious falsehoods, designed to damage people because she was angry at them, or, in many cases, to hurt relatives and associates of people against whom she bore grudges. Ms Atas breached multiple court orders and cannot be trusted to obey directions, observe her undertakings, or to conduct herself in accordance with basic decency.
[4] Ms Atas is not an ordinary member of the public seeking access to the record of court proceedings, but a vexatious litigant precluded from further litigation without first obtaining permission from the case management judge.
[5] The two civil judgments against Ms Atas provide a strong basis for concern that she seeks transcripts for the purposes of further harassment or other malicious conduct towards persons against whom she holds grudges or simply to further her established pattern of vexatious conduct. The civil cases are over and there are no outstanding appeals in respect to them. The most recent appearance for which a request has been made was about five years ago.
[6] Further, Ms Atas has a very long history of seeking to relitigate matters that have been decided on a final basis. The Vexatious Litigant Proceeding and the Internet Harassment Proceedings have all been decided on a final basis (2018 ONSC 58 and 2021 ONSC 670), and yet Ms Atas’ history suggests that she will never accept that such is the case and will seek to try to re-litigate these cases wherever she can. She sought to do that in proceedings against the New York Times (and many others) in the United States of America, in Federal Court of Canada proceedings against the Canadian Judicial Council (including complaints against me[2]), and in attempts to move pursuant to s.140(3) and (4) of the Courts of Justice Act. These proceedings have all been dismissed or precluded on a final basis, but they provide further evidence that Ms Atas will not cease trying to contest the findings that have been made against her. As found in the Vexatious Litigant Judgment, it “will never be over” for Ms Atas. The court must be vigilant to prevent further re-litigation by way of collateral attacks: any continued contestation of the now-concluded civil proceedings, whether directly or by collateral attack, can only cause further stress and anxiety to the victims Ms Atas has so cruelly and unjustly abused and further misuse scarce resources in the justice system.
[7] Ms Atas’ most recent requests for transcripts reached me on July 28, 2026. They were for three appearances in 2018. These requests were denied in the same manner I had denied all previous requests. Ms Atas then provided court staff with a copy of an endorsement of Doherty J.A. directing production of these transcripts for use in an appeal from decisions of mine holding Ms Atas in contempt and sentencing her to a period of incarceration of six days. At my direction, court staff advised Ms Atas as follows on July 29, 2026:
This court understands that all of Ms Atas’ proceedings in the Court of Appeal have been disposed of on a final basis, and thus that the order of Doherty JA is now spent. If this court is incorrect in this understanding, the requesting party is asked to identify the Court of Appeal proceeding for which transcripts are still required, following which the court will reconsider the request for transcripts.
[8] No response was received from Ms Atas to this direction.
[9] I also initiated inquiries with staff at the Court of Appeal about whether there were any appeals in that court brought by Ms Atas that have not yet been disposed of finally. I learned that the appeal for which Doherty J.A. had ordered production of transcripts was dismissed by a Deputy Registrar some years ago. I also learned that an appeal from a subsequent contempt finding had been “revived” in 2025 and is an open appeal file in the Court of Appeal.
[10] Further research revealed prior endorsements from this court respecting the transcripts directed produced by Doherty J.A. in 2019. The endorsement of Doherty J.A. was provided to me by Ms Atas on February 1, 2019: 2019 ONSC 911, para. 2. The issue was raised again before me at a case conference on May 31, 2019, and I directed as follows (2019 ONSC 3620, paras. 43-44):
Ms Atas advised me by email and again during the case management conference that Tulloch J.A. has extended Ms Atas’ time to perfect her appeal from my finding of contempt against her and the sentence imposed for that contempt until sometime after delivery of certain transcripts. Ms Atas advised me that she had been advised by the transcriptionist that this process was now awaiting my approval for release of the transcripts. This came as a surprise to me: Doherty J.A. made an order for production of these transcripts, and I did not realize that anything was required from me in respect to this matter.
After the case management conference I checked and learned that draft transcripts had been prepared, and that these were apparently awaiting my review. I obtained them and reviewed them. Certified transcripts should be provided to Ms Atas shortly; if she does not have them by June 27, 2019, Ms Atas is directed to so notify my assistant, by email, explaining her understanding of the reasons for any continuing delay.
[11] By case management endorsement dated July 5, 2019, I provided further directions respecting the transcript issue (2019 ONSC 4138), paras. 10-11:
In her submissions of July 2, 2019, Ms Atas states as follows:
I am still waiting for judicial release of the transcripts that were submitted to Justice Corbett in mid-April 2019.
As I indicated in para. 44 of my endorsement of June 12, 2019, I have reviewed the transcripts, and they should have been released to Ms Atas by now. Ms Atas does not explain why she is “still waiting for judicial review of the transcripts”. Ms Atas shall forthwith email the court transcriptionist to inquire about the status of the transcripts. She shall forward a copy of her email and the response she receives to it to my assistant immediately upon receipt of a response. If she has not received a response by July 12, 2019, she shall, by 5:00 pm that day, forward a copy of her email to my assistant, and my office will follow up with transcriptionist.
[12] By further direction dated October 23, 2019, I once again addressed the transcript issue, summarizing the history set out above, and concluding as follows (2019 ONSC 6153, para. 8):
Ms Atas has not complied with this direction [set out in 2019 ONSC 4138]. Neither has she filed transcripts for the contempt appeal (I was so advised by Ms Wallis on October 4th, who told me that she had recently checked this issue with the Court of Appeal). Ms Atas is in breach of my order of July 5, 2019. The result appears to be continuing delay in her appeal in the contempt proceedings. Ms Atas shall, on or before November 15, 2019, take the steps directed in my endorsement of July 5, 2019, and shall explain why she did not comply with the endorsement by July 12th, as directed. Ms Atas should understand that if she fails to comply with this direction, or if her explanation for her non-compliance to date is unsatisfactory, she may be required to show cause why [she] should not be cited for contempt of court again. As has been explained to her repeatedly, court orders and directions are not suggestions: they are mandatory and must be obeyed.
[13] It appears to me that the order of Doherty J.A. is now spent, being an interlocutory order in an appeal that has long been dismissed. However, it is for the Court of Appeal, not me, to determine whether that order should be enforced now, and, indeed, whether any other transcripts may be required for the purposes of the appeal that is still outstanding. As I understand it, that appeal is in respect to a distinct finding of contempt for which I sentenced Ms Atas to 75 days’ incarceration. Stay of that sentence pending appeal was denied, many years ago, by MacPherson J.A., and so I understand that the sentence has been served. That fact would not render the appeal moot, but it does raise a concern, in the context of recent requests for transcripts from dozens of court appearances before me going back to 2014, that Ms Atas may once again be trying to mount a collateral attack on “everything that has ever happened” in the guise of an appeal of the contempt finding – a tactic she tried to employ when she sought to mount a collateral attack on prior proceedings in the guise of a “truth” defence in defamation proceedings, and in the context of her failed proceedings against the New York Times, the Canadian Judicial Council and in respect to her request to move pursuant to s.140(3) and (4) of the CJA.
[14] If Ms Atas is seeking these transcripts to place them all before the Court of Appeal in her one outstanding appeal, the Court of Appeal is best placed to decide what transcripts are required. I will not authorize production of an avalanche of transcripts to have them filed unnecessarily in Court of Appeal proceedings, but if the Court of Appeal directs production of any of those transcripts, then of course I will do what I can to facilitate and expedite their production.
[15] For these reasons, I exercise my inherent jurisdiction to protect the administration of justice and have therefore not authorized production of any transcripts of appearances before me requested since the beginning of June 2026 by Ms Atas. I would direct that a copy of this endorsement be sent to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal.
[16] Nothing in this endorsement addresses the availability of transcripts of public proceedings in the Superior Court generally. Ms Atas is not an ordinary member of the public. She is a vexatious litigant, with a history of misuse of court resources. In view of all that has gone before, I will not authorize release of transcripts requested by Ms Atas unless release is directed or requested by another court, or unless Ms Atas provides a compelling reason for her request.
“D.L. Corbett J.”
Date Released: August 12, 2026
1This endorsement is issued in CV-14-515899 but applies to all Ms Atas’ civil proceedings that were before me. Applicants were not given notice of Ms Atas’ requests or an opportunity to respond to them.
2Ms Atas has made numerous complaints against me to the Judicial Council and taken the position that I was precluded from further adjudication of her proceedings as a consequence (among other grounds for her asserting a reasonable apprehension of bias). Her bias allegations against me were dismissed in the Judgment in the Vexatious Litigant Proceedings (which judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal, with leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed); subsequent allegations of bias were asserted repeatedly by Ms Atas but never pursued by way of motion.