Panagopoulos v. Ugursal, 2023 NSSC 78

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: Panagopoulos v. Ugursal , 2023 NSSC 78 Date: 20230301 Docket: Hfx No. 405434 Registry: Halifax Between: Maria Panagopoulos Plaintiff v. Billur Ugursal Defendant TRIAL DECISION Judge: The Honourable Justice Scott C. Norton Heard: January 10, 2023, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Decision: March 1, 2023 Counsel: Maria Panagopoulos, self-represented Plaintiff Dennise K. Mack, for the Defendant By the Court: Introduction [ 1 ] In seeking to do justice between parties involved in protracted civil litigation, the Court must balance a number of potentially conflicting interests.

In this case those interests include: assisting an unrepresented litigant; the right of all parties to a trial within a reasonable time; and, the obligation of the Court to see that the object of its rules of procedure: the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every proceeding, is upheld. [ 2 ] This litigation was commenced by the filing of a Notice of Action and Statement of Claim on August 1, 2012. It was scheduled for a seven day trial commencing on January 10 and 11 and to continue on March 20 to 27, 2023.

At the outset of the trial on January 10, 2023, when offered the opportunity, the Plaintiff, Maria Panagopoulos did not present any evidence. She requested that the trial be adjourned. She filed no written motion for the adjournment and presented no evidence. She repeated submissions that she had made repeatedly to the Court at the time the trial was scheduled and since. The Defendant moved to dismiss the proceeding. I reserved my decision. [ 3 ] I grant the motion to dismiss the proceeding. My reasons follow.

Background [ 4 ] This matter arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on August 2, 2009, now close to 14 years ago. The Statement of Claim, filed August 1, 2012 alleges that Ms. Panagopoulos was riding as a passenger in the Defendant Ugursal’s motor vehicle. Ms. Ugursal had missed a turn and was backing up when her vehicle contacted a vehicle approaching from behind. The claim by Ms. Panagopoulos against Ms. Ugursal is based in negligence. [ 5 ] Fault for the collision was admitted by the Defendant.

Causation (a necessary element for proof of liability in a negligence action) and damages are the issues to be determined at the trial. [ 6 ] The Defendant’s position, as taken from their defence and pre-trial brief, is that the force of the impact was minimal, with no physical damage to either vehicle. The respective drivers did not exchange information.

The Defendant submits that the Plaintiff’s complaints relate entirely to a previous motor vehicle accident in 1989 or; if caused at all by the 2009 accident, are “minor injuries” as defined by the Insurance Act , RSNS c.231. [ 7 ] This litigation has been case-managed since May 30, 2018. At the time the present trial dates were scheduled, Ms. Panagopoulos was advised that she would need to be ready to begin presenting her case on the first day of the trial, January 10, 2023.

[ 8 ] The Trial Readiness Conference was held on November 4, 2022. The Plaintiff said she was not ready for trial due to her medical condition and her mistreatment by the court on this file in the case management process. I advised that she had been given the necessary time and assistance for her to become ready for trial. I stated that if she retained a lawyer, they could contact the court for a conference. Otherwise, the trial would proceed as scheduled. [ 9 ] As the first day of trial approached, Ms. Panagopoulos emailed the court several times, attempting to obtain an adjournment.

I denied her requests and re-iterated to her that the trial would begin on January 10, 2023. On January 9, 2023, Ms. Panagopoulos contacted the court, indicating that she was very sick, and that she thought she might have Covid-19. She said she planned to be tested for Covid-19 at the hospital that day. [ 10 ] On the morning of January 10, 2023, the Court called Ms. Panagopoulos, on the record, in the presence of defence counsel. Ms. Panagopoulos stated, under oath, that she had been tested for Covid at the IWK the day before and would not receive her results until the afternoon.

I directed that if she did not receive a positive test result, she was to attend for trial in person the following day. [ 11 ] On January 11, 2023, Ms. Panagopoulos failed to appear in person. When reached by phone, on the record, she stated that her Covid-19 test was negative, but that she did not attend court because she is very sick and incapable of representing herself.

She alleged that no lawyer would agree to take her case due to all the “misconduct” that has occurred on the part of defence counsel, judges, her previous lawyers, court staff, etc., and asked for her file “to be investigated” – a request she has made repeatedly in the past. Since Ms. Panagopoulos called no evidence, the Defendant moved to dismiss the action. The history of the proceeding summarized below is lengthy, but relevant and important to contextualize my decision.

Chronology of Proceedings August 4, 2009 The plaintiff, Maria Panagopoulos, and the defendant, Billur Ugursal, are involved in a motor vehicle accident. August 1, 2012 The plaintiff, represented by Lyle Howe, files Notice of Action and Statement of Claim. [1] December 7, 2012 The plaintiff files Notice of New Counsel indicating that she is now represented by Donald L Pressé. January 8, 2013 The plaintiff files Amended Notice of Action and Statement of Claim. February 12, 2013 The defendant, represented by J. Scott Barnett, files Notice of Defence and Statement of Defence.

April 25, 2016 The defendant files Notice of New Counsel indicating that she is now represented by Dennise K Mack. April 26, 2016 The defendant files a Request for Date Assignment Conference. RDAC indicates that the defendant is awaiting additional disclosure and all discoveries have taken place. The defendant estimates 5 days required for trial (non-jury) and anticipates all parties being ready for trial by January 2017. The defendant also requests a settlement conference. May 18, 2016 The plaintiff files Memorandum for Date Assignment Judge.

The plaintiff estimates that she will require five days to present her case and anticipates being ready for trial by June 2017. June 23, 2016 Supreme Court Scheduling Co-ordinator notifies counsel that a DAC has been scheduled for October 14, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. August 24, 2016 Supreme Court Scheduling Co-ordinator notifies counsel that the DAC has been rescheduled to December 9, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. November 9, 2016 Defence counsel writes to the court to confirm that both she and Mr. Pressé are available on February 17, 2017, for purposes of re-scheduling the DAC.

January 26, 2017 The plaintiff files Notice of New Counsel indicating that she is now represented by Glenn E Jones. February 17, 2017 DAC is conducted by Associate Chief Justice Deborah K. Smith (as she then was). Trial is scheduled for February 20, 21, 22, 26, 27, 28 and March 1, 2018. The Finish Date is set for November 8, 2017. The DAC Memorandum states that both liability and quantum are in issue, and that the plaintiff has waived discovery examination of the defendant. The plaintiff indicates that she will call 2-3 lay witnesses, 1 Rule 55 expert, and 3-5 treating physicians.

The defendant indicates that she will call 1-2 lay witnesses and 2 experts. A settlement conference is scheduled for July 25, 2017, commencing at 2:00 p.m. February 22, 2017 Supreme Court Scheduling Co-ordinator notifies counsel that a Trial Readiness Conference is scheduled for December 8, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. July 13, 2017 Plaintiff’s counsel requests a settlement conference with A.C.J. Smith in August, September, or October. July 18, 2017 The defendant files settlement conference brief. July 19, 2017 A.C.J.

Smith’s office emails counsel to advise that the settlement conference has been rescheduled to September 7, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., and will be before A.C.J. Smith. August 18, 2017 Glenn Jones writes to A.C.J. Smith to advise that he will be making a motion to withdraw as solicitor of record for the plaintiff. He indicates that the plaintiff wishes to cancel the settlement conference scheduled for September 7, 2017, and that she is willing to reschedule once she has retained new counsel. Glenn Jones files the motion to withdraw as counsel for the plaintiff, returnable on August 29, 2017.

In the affidavit sworn and filed in support of the motion, Mr. Jones states: 4. Recently, it has become clear in written correspondence sent to me from the Plaintiff that the solicitor-client relationship has broken down. The Plaintiff has clearly indicated a serious lack of confidence in my advice and representation and believes I am not acting in her best interests. I do not believe that the Plaintiff respects my advice, ethics or integrity. 5.

While I do not feel I have done anything inappropriate or acted against my client’s interests, I do not believe it would be proper for me to continue to act for a client who holds the above beliefs … August 25, 2017 The plaintiff writes to Justice Gregory Warner, the judge scheduled to hear the motion by Mr. Jones to withdraw as solicitor of record. She asks for an extension to respond to the motion, and requests that Mr. Jones be ordered to provide her with the brief filed by the defendant on July 18, 2017.

August 28, 2017 Defence counsel writes to Justice Warner, stating (in part): I will not be taking a position at tomorrow’s motion but do wish to emphasize that this litigation has been ongoing for some time and we do have trial dates in February. I do not wish to have the trial dates jeopardized.

August 29, 2017 Justice Warner grants Mr. Jones’ motion to withdraw as solicitor of record for the plaintiff. September 26, 2017 [2] The plaintiff sends Justice Warner, through his assistant, a six-page email. In it, she alleges various acts of misconduct on the part of Mr. Jones, Mr. Pressé, Ms. Mack, and court staff. She again references the defendant’s settlement conference brief, which she says is now missing from the court file. October 18, 2017 The plaintiff again emails Justice Warner, through his assistant.

She writes, in part: I am very skeptical about the legal process by both sides of lawyers, regarding my case, of their misconducts to date. Since you are the judge for hearing of Aug 29-17, and you ordered Mr. Jones to deliver my file, and he has failed, I will appreciate for you to write a letter to my lawyer to provide all my documents by law. Please comply to this serious request. October 23, 2017 Justice Warner’s assistant responds to the plaintiff by email, advising her that her communication to Warner, J. does not comply with Rule 87, which governs how a party may communicate with a judge.

She informs the plaintiff that all future communication should be directed to the Halifax Law Courts. She also provides the plaintiff with the contact information for the Lawyer Referral Service through the Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society. December 6, 2017 Gordon Allen emails the Provincial Rota and Scheduling Manager at the Supreme Court indicating that he has been retained by the plaintiff for the purpose of the Trial Readiness Conference on December 8, 2017, and the settlement conference scheduled to be conducted on January 23, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.

December 8, 2017 Justice Patrick Duncan (as he then was) conducts the Trial Readiness Conference. He determines that the matter is not trial ready and cancels the trial dates. He indicates that a new DAC will have to be held on a request initiated by either party. January 23, 2018 Gordon Allen writes to Justice Nick Scaravelli requesting that the settlement conference scheduled for later that day be rescheduled. He explains that the previous evening, he discovered a disbursement bill from the plaintiff’s previous counsel for a Rule 55 compliant IME.

He says they were unaware that an IME had been prepared and were only able to obtain a copy of it the night before. He further states: We have yet to review it with Ms. Panagopoulos. We believe the IME is relevant and would be useful to the settlement process. It also is privileged if such privilege is claimed. We obviously need to review it with Ms. Panagopoulos and seek instructions about its disclosure.

January 23, 2018 Defence counsel writes to Justice Scaravelli, stating: I have just received Mr. Allen’s correspondence to your Lordship. This is the second time a settlement conference is being adjourned, shortly before it is scheduled to take place. While I appreciate Mr. Allen’s plight, the problem of the undisclosed IME was at all times within the knowledge of Mrs. Panagopoulos and her former counsel. It is respectfully submitted that there should be cost consequences in favour of my client if the settlement conference is adjourned at this late stage.

January 23, 2018 Justice Scaravelli writes to counsel following a telephone conference that morning to confirm that the settlement conference has been rescheduled to February 5, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. before Justice Coughlan. He further advises that the parties may file supplemental briefs in light of the recently discovered IME report. February 5, 2018 The settlement conference proceeds before Justice Coughlan. No settlement is reached.

March 2, 2018 Defence counsel writes to the Supreme Court Scheduling Co-ordinator to advise that her client and the plaintiff, who is now self-represented, agree that the matter can be rescheduled for trial and ask that a DAC be arranged. May 18, 2018 DAC is conducted by Justice Suzanne Hood. She concludes the matter is not ready to have trial dates set. Ms. Panagopoulos is seeking a new lawyer and has the file from her previous lawyer. The parties consent to a case management judge being appointed. May 30, 2018 The court contacts the parties to advise that A.C.J. Smith has been assigned to case-manage the file.

An in-person case management meeting is scheduled for July 4, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. The parties are asked to write to A.C.J. Smith by June 20, 2018, advising what matters they wish to discuss on July 4. June 1, 2018 Defence counsel writes to the Associate Chief Justice indicating that the defendant is seeking several responses to undertakings by the plaintiff to provide copies of medical records. The defendant also wishes to arrange an IME of the plaintiff. June 8, 2018 Defence counsel writes to the plaintiff advising that the plaintiff is required to attend for an IME on August 27, 2018, with Dr. Edvin Koshi.

June 20, 2018 The plaintiff writes a six-page letter to the Associate Chief Justice. She indicates that she has provided all medical documentation to defence counsel. She makes various allegations of misconduct against her previous lawyers, Justice Coughlan, Justice Scaravelli, defence counsel, and court staff. She further states: This case has been destroyed by the legal team of both sides, I need one year of timing for trial dates to be scheduled for me to be able to retain a lawyer and prepare my case for an IME etc.

I have approached lawyers and been told the case is in chaos refusing to take my case on to represent me, if this case is not settled by justice and its merit, my daughter is going to the supreme court of Canada, for Obstruction of justice. Because of abuse, stress has cause my health, to deteriorate, I am trying to cope on daily basis with head pain, I know for a fact that this case has many unethical issues of both sides misrepresentation, delays, and many illegal problems that are with scrutiny. I am requesting for Mrs.

Mack to bring copy of her brief and all disclosures. [Errors in original] June 26, 2018 Defence counsel files a motion for an order pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules 21.01 and 21.02 to compel the plaintiff to submit to an IME with Dr. Koshi on August 27, 2018, at 8:00 a.m. July 4, 2018 A.C.J. Smith conducts the first case management conference. The following is discussed and agreed to:

(1) Defence counsel will provide the plaintiff with a copy of the defendant’s settlement conference brief;

(2) By July 20, 2018, the plaintiff will advise defence counsel and the court whether she consents to defendant’s request that she attend an IME with Dr. Koshi on August 27, 2018;

(3) If the plaintiff does not consent to the IME, she will file any documents she intends to rely on in response to the defendant’s motion for an order requiring her to submit to the examination. Documents shall be filed and served by July 20, 2018;

(4) The hearing of the defendant’s motion will take place on July 30, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.;

(5) The defendant admits fault for the collision but causation and damages remain in issue;

(6) The plaintiff wishes to discover the defendant. The parties will

schedule a mutually agreeable date for discovery examination to take place;

(7) Defence counsel will confirm whether the plaintiff was previously discovered on one day or two, and provide her with that information;

(8) Defence counsel will provide the plaintiff with a copy of the Pressé Mason list of disbursements provided to her at the settlement conference;

(9) The next case management conference will take place on October 10, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. In addition, at the case management conference, the plaintiff signs forms authorizing the release of various documents requested by defence counsel.

July 19, 2018 The plaintiff writes to A.C.J. Smith to request that the hearing of the defendant’s motion to compel her to attend the IME with Dr. Koshi be rescheduled to the end of September 2018, so that she can attempt to retain a lawyer. She says she wishes to obtain legal advice on whether to consent to the IME. The plaintiff says she met with one lawyer who declined to represent her but she will attempt to find representation by September. July 24, 2018 A.C.J. Smith conducts a telephone conference with the parties to discuss the plaintiff’s request for an extension of time.

Matter adjourned to a further telephone conference call to take place on July 26, at 4:00 p.m. July 26, 2018 A.C.J. Smith conducts a further telephone conference. She advises that the hearing scheduled to take place on July 30, 2018, has been adjourned to allow the plaintiff more time to attempt to find counsel. The hearing of the defendant’s motion seeking to require the plaintiff to submit to an IME is rescheduled to September 19, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. September 19, 2018 A.C.J. Smith hears and grants the defendant’s motion for an order that the plaintiff attend an IME at the office of Dr.

Koshi on November 19, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. The order also includes the following: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT by October 31, 2018 the Defendant’s solicitor shall mail to the Plaintiff a complete list of all medical information that she is providing to Dr. Koshi in relation to the Plaintiff; September 20, 2018 The Associate Chief Justice writes to the parties to confirm that the next case management conference has been rescheduled to October 9, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. September 28, 2018 Defence counsel writes to A.C.J. Smith regarding issues to be addressed at the next case management conference.

She states: (1) that the plaintiff refuses to sign the consent form issued by Dr. Koshi’s office, and that Dr. Koshi has concerns about proceeding with the IME under these circumstances; (2) that the plaintiff has not yet confirmed that she will agree to pay ½ the cost of the defendant’s discovery examination; (3) that records from the authorizations the plaintiff signed at the last case management conference are slowly arriving. However, Capital District Health Authority did not accept the authorization signed by the plaintiff and wishes to have their own form signed. The plaintiff refuses to sign the form;

(4) The plaintiff requested a copy of the attachments from the defendants’ settlement conference brief. The brief and attachments were sent to her by registered mail on September 20, 2018;

(5) An index documenting the materials sent to Dr. Koshi was sent to Ms. Panagopoulos by registered mail on September 20, 2018;

(6) The defendant reported to her counsel that she received a phone call on September 24, 2018, by an individual who did not identify herself. The defendant believes the call came from the plaintiff. Counsel requests that if the call did come from the plaintiff, the court advise her that she should not be communicating directly with the defendant, who is represented by counsel.

September 28, 2018 The plaintiff writes to A.C.J. Smith regarding issues to be addressed at the next case management conference. The plaintiff alleges that defence counsel is continuously requesting documents which have already been provided to her. She makes further allegations of misconduct against her previous counsel, defence counsel, Justice Coughlan, and others. As to the IME with Dr. Koshi, she writes: Mrs. Mack is going to pay this doctor thousands of dollars to prepare a bias report and with information is legally only for the court lawyers and the judge.

I refuse to see this doctor next month till all information is in order such as the discovery is complete, disclosures are available and what ever other requests are necessary and discuss Oct 09.18 with trial dates to be set at this time. [Errors in original]

October 9, 2018 A.C.J. Smith conducts the second case management conference. The following is discussed and agreed to:

(1) Defence counsel has provided the plaintiff with a copy of the defendant’s settlement conference brief;

(2) The plaintiff re-confirms that she will be responsible for ½ of the court reporter’s fees for the defendant’s discovery examination but requests that a date for discovery not be set at this time because she is unrepresented. Defence counsel agrees;

(3) Defence counsel confirms that the plaintiff’s discovery examination took place over two days. She advises that she has given the plaintiff transcripts of the examination free of charge;

(4) Defence counsel confirms she has provided the plaintiff with a copy of the Press é Mason list of disbursements;

(5) The plaintiff signs the consent form requested by CDHA;

(6) A.C.J. Smith explains to the plaintiff that she should not contact the defendant directly;

(7) The plaintiff expresses concern about the materials that defence counsel intends to forward to Dr. Koshi. A.C.J. Smith explains that the plaintiff is free to raise these issues with Dr. Koshi and to deal with these issues at the time of trial. She further explains that the issue of the plaintiff’s attendance at Dr. Koshi’s office has already been determined by the court and she is required to comply with the September 19, 2018 order;

(8) The plaintiff explains that she has a daughter, Tania Marossis, who has offered to assist her with the litigation. Ms. Marossis resides in Toronto. The Associate Chief Justice suggests (and defence counsel agrees) that Ms. Marossis participate by telephone in any upcoming case management conferences. The plaintiff provides the court with a telephone number for her daughter;

(9) A.C.J. Smith explains to the plaintiff, in general terms, what she needs to do in order to get ready for trial;

(10) By February 28, 2019, both parties will file with the court and serve on each other a witness list for trial. By that same date, both parties shall provide each other, and file with the court, a complete copy of all experts’ reports or physicians’ narratives that they intend to rely on at the time of trial;

(11) In response to previous references by the plaintiff to things said by Justice Coughlan during the settlement conference, as well as lawyers she has seen over the years regarding the value of her claim, A.C.J. Smith explains that what is said in a settlement conference is confidential and should not be discussed with others (other than counsel). She also explains the concept of solicitor-client privilege. A.C.J. Smith further advises that she is prepared to conduct a further settlement conference prior to trial to see if the case can be resolved. She suggests that Ms. Marossis be in attendance during the settlement conference.

(12) A.C.J. Smith suggests to the plaintiff that she make several appointments at the court’s Free Legal Clinic to discuss, in particular, what she needs to do in order to prepare for trial. She also suggests that the plaintiff watch a personal injury case so that she can familiarize herself with the process.

(13) The next case management conference will take place on March 15, 2019, at 2:00 p.m.

November 7, 2018 The plaintiff writes a ten-page letter to the Associate Chief Justice indicating that she refuses to attend the IME appointment with Dr. Koshi. She says defence counsel has failed to provide the complete list of medical documents that is being provided to Dr. Koshi prior to the examination. She further states that the copy of the defendant’s settlement conference brief and medical attachments provided to her by defence counsel is not date stamped and registered with the court.

The plaintiff states, “I expect to receive a copy of the Brief that was filed in court on July 18-2017.” She alleges that the brief has been tampered with, and important pages of the medical documentation removed. The plaintiff also states: I am extremely disappointed not only with Mrs. Mack but with other legal professionals that have failed me. Mrs. Mack has tried everything to destroy this case with Bias Assistance, constant tactics, instead of trying to settle.

This case has been sabotaged with Misconduct, Obstruction of justice, forgery, emotional anguish and turmoil that has cause major issues to my health, and enormous stress to my daughter, major delays and issues before and after the conference settlement of Feb.05-18 with Bias Discrimination involved, to date. Trial dates cancelled with unethical motives of misconduct. Destroyed documents in court that involves my ongoing case as the plaintiff. negligence for Mrs. Mack to comply with the law of all proceedings, misconduct of documents/medical reports excluded from Defendant’s Brief.

Because of all above I have mistrust for the integrity of the Law and no lawyer to represent me. … I will not agreed to another conference till I will receive all documents that I am entitled, by Mrs. Mack, and the Recovery of the documents in court, that were filed prior to the conference of Feb. 05-18 and for the trial dates. under these circumstances at this point, I do not see the importance for me for a conference unless Mrs. Mack is willing to settle this claim, otherwise I am hoping trial dates will be set. Hopefully I will retain a lawyer, meantime I expect Mrs.

Mack to comply with my requests have all documents I have requested By March Hoping there will be a trial dates to be set. This is no longer a personal injury case as far as I am concerned these procedures are not conducted, according to the law. but with negligence, prejudice and misconducts. [Errors in original] November 8, 2018 Defence counsel writes to the Associate Chief Justice in response to the plaintiff’s letter indicating that she would not attend the IME. She states: If Ms.

Panagopoulos does not attend the independent medical examination, we will be making a motion to find her in contempt of a court order. We will also be looking to her for compensation for the costs of the appointment. I strongly urge that she seek legal advice. December 12, 2018 The defendant files a motion under Rule 89 for an order citing the plaintiff for contempt. December 21, 2018 The defendant files an ex parte motion pursuant to Rule 31.10 for an order for substituted service.

In the affidavit filed in support of the motion, defence counsel indicates that repeated attempts to serve the plaintiff with the documents for the contempt motion have been unsuccessful.

January 7, 2019 A.C.J. Smith conducts ex parte motion hearing for an order for substituted service. She expresses concern that the plaintiff is simply away, rather than evading service. A.C.J. Smith directs defence counsel to have the process server speak to the plaintiff’s neighbours to determine whether she has been seen at her residence. She also proposes that the court contact the plaintiff’s daughter following the hearing to determine her whereabouts. She notes that it is unusual for the court to take such a step, but the plaintiff might not want defence counsel to have her daughter’s contact information.

The parties will return on January 30, 2019. If defence counsel manages to serve the plaintiff, the January 30 date will be for a pre-hearing conference. Otherwise, the court will re-visit the motion for an order for substituted service. January 15, 2019 A.C.J. Smith’s assistant contacts Ms. Marossis and confirms that the plaintiff is in Ontario visiting and has been there for about a month. Ms. Marossis says her mother may be returning on January 16 or 17, or it may be at the end of the month. She indicates that she will ask her mother to contact the court when she books her return flight.

January 17, 2019 Defence counsel writes to the court to request that the motion scheduled for January 30, 2019, be adjourned without day, as the plaintiff has been out of province and the defendant has been unable to serve her. January 22, 2019 A.C.J. Smith’s assistant emails defence counsel to inform her that the plaintiff contacted the court to confirm that she has returned to Halifax. A.C.J. Smith agrees to adjourn motion scheduled for January 30, 2019, without day. February 5, 2019 The plaintiff’s daughter writes to defence counsel and A.C.J.

Smith’s assistant, alleging that they have both demonstrated a lack of ethics in relation to her mother’s personal injury case. She alleges, inter alia , that Ms. Mack has failed to provide her mother with the documents required in the court order of September 29, 2018. She further alleges, inter alia , that A.C.J. Smith’s assistant should have advised her of the court date on January 7, 2019, during their phone call on January 15. A.C.J. Smith’s assistant replies to Ms. Marossis, stating that A.C.J. Smith is out of the office and expected to return the following day. She says she will bring Ms.

Marossis’ email to her attention at that time. February 15, 2019 The plaintiff files a motion for an order for production of documents by the defendant.

February 25, 2019 The parties attend court before A.C.J. Smith to discuss the two motions. A.C.J. Smith explains that the burden of proof in each of the two motions is different. She adds that the plaintiff is not required to give evidence in relation to the contempt proceeding but she is required to give evidence in support of her motion for production of documents. For these reasons, the motions will be heard separately. The Associate Chief Justice explains that a contempt motion is a quasi-criminal proceeding and reviews what that entails.

She advises the plaintiff that if she cannot afford counsel, she may wish to apply to Nova Scotia Legal Aid to see if they will represent her in relation to the contempt motion. A.C.J. Smith indicates that the liability portion of the contempt motion will be dealt with first and then, if applicable, proceed to the penalty stage. A brief recorded telephone conversation is scheduled on March 5, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to confirm whether the plaintiff has retained counsel, and whether she has any interest in participating in a further settlement conference.

The case management conference that was scheduled for March 15, 2019, will take place at a later date. A new date will be set for the filing of witness lists. The liability portion of the contempt motion will be heard on March 15, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. March 7, 2019 The plaintiff requests a one-month adjournment of the contempt motion for health reasons. Defence counsel consents. The court confirms the adjournment and advises the parties that they will still be required to appear on March 15, 2019, to review matters and reschedule the motion. March 15, 2019 At the case management meeting with A.C.J.

Smith, the plaintiff advises that Legal Aid is prepared to represent her in relation to the contempt motion. The motion is rescheduled for June 3, 2019. A.C.J. Smith asks the plaintiff to have the lawyer contact her assistant to confirm their availability for June 3. April 4, 2019 J.N. Nodelman of Nova Scotia Legal Aid writes to A.C.J. Smith’s assistant to advise that he is prepared to represent the plaintiff in the contempt motion, but that he is not available on June 3, 2019. April 11, 2019 A.C.J. Smith notifies the parties that the contempt hearing will be rescheduled at Mr.

Nodelman’s request to June 4, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. June 3, 2019 Mr. Nodelman writes the following to A.C.J. Smith, by email to her assistant: I write pursuant to the matter of Panagopoulos v. Ugursal, which matter comes on for a hearing of a contempt motion tomorrow afternoon before Smith A.C.J. … In any event, Ms. Panagopoulos and I are now in a position of solicitor-client breakdown. I will certainly attend in person at 2:00 tomorrow afternoon, but I will immediately ask Smith A.C.J. to discharge me as Ms. Panagopoulos’s solicitor of record. … Should I indeed be discharged, Ms.

Panagopoulos may request the contempt hearing itself be adjourned for her to prepare further to represent herself as a self- represented litigant.

June 4, 2019 A.C.J. Smith allows Mr. Nodelman’s request to be removed as solicitor of record. At the plaintiff’s request, she also adjourned the contempt hearing to June 21, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to allow the plaintiff time to prepare. June 11, 2019 A.C.J. Smith writes to the parties to confirm what took place at the June 4, 2019 appearance. She emphasizes to the plaintiff that the contempt hearing will proceed on June 21, 2019, as scheduled, and that it is important for her to prepare and arrive ready to proceed. A.C.J.

Smith also encloses a copy of a booklet for self- represented litigants to assist the plaintiff in her preparation. June 21, 2019 Liability portion of contempt hearing proceeds before A.C.J. Smith. The plaintiff is assisted by Jennifer MacDonald, a lawyer acting as a friend to the court. The court reserves its decision and adjourns until July 10 for oral decision. June 24, 2019 A.C.J. Smith is appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. July 10, 2019 Chief Justice Smith renders oral decision on liability for contempt.

She finds that although the three elements of contempt have been made out, she is exercising her discretion to adjourn the issue of whether a finding of contempt should be made against the plaintiff. C.J. Smith notes that the plaintiff’s evidence at the contempt hearing was that she had misunderstood the order of September 19, 2018 as requiring defence counsel to provide her with copies of all the documents sent to Dr. Koshi. In fact, the order required defence counsel to provide the plaintiff with a complete list of all medical documentation that she was providing to Dr.

Koshi, which was sent to the plaintiff by letter dated September 20, 2018. C.J. Smith further notes that the plaintiff indicated during argument that if her understanding of the order is incorrect, she is prepared to comply with the order and attend for the IME. The court adjourns the issue of whether to find the plaintiff in contempt and gives her one further opportunity to attend an IME with Dr. Koshi. If she fails to attend, the court will re-convene the hearing and make a finding on liability for contempt. Costs will be dealt with when the parties return. C.J.

Smith also asks defence counsel to provide the plaintiff with copies of various documents. July 16, 2019 Defence counsel sends the plaintiff copies of the various documents referred to by the Chief Justice during the July 10 appearance. July 24, 2019 The plaintiff is served with an order requiring her to attend at the office of Dr. Koshi on October 31, 2019, at 11:00 a.m. for an IME. She is also provided with a transcript of the July 10 court appearance and advised that the contempt motion will continue on November 27, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. October 31, 2019 The plaintiff attends Dr. Koshi’s office for the IME.

November 21, 2019 Defence counsel files a brief relating to costs on the contempt motion, and a Statement of Qualification of Dr. Edvin Koshi as an Expert.

November 27, 2019 The contempt motion resumes, on the issue of costs. The defendant is seeking costs of $5,000. Enhanced costs of $3,000 are awarded to the defendant, payable at the conclusion of the proceeding. C.J. Smith further holds that the issue of Dr. Koshi’s accounts will be dealt with by the trial judge at the conclusion of the proceeding. The following dates are set:

(1) The defendant shall file an amended RDAC by December 4, 2019;

(2) The plaintiff shall file her Memorandum for Date Assignment Judge by December 18, 2019;

(3) The parties will participate in a conference call with C.J. Smith on January 20, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. November 29, 2019 Defence counsel sends the plaintiff copies of counsel’s letter to Dr. Koshi dated July 13, 2018; Dr. Koshi’s Report dated November 3; and Dr. Koshi’s Addendum Report dated November 18, 2019. December 5, 2019 Defence counsel files amended Statement of Qualification of Dr. Edvin Koshi as an Expert; Statement of Qualification of Dr. Edvin Koshi as an Expert with Addendum Report; and an amended RDAC. Defendant requests trial by judge alone. Defendant estimates calling Dr.

Edvin Koshi and 1-2 lay witnesses, each requiring 2-3 hours for testimony. December 16, 2019 The plaintiff files her Memorandum for Date Assignment Judge. She elects trial by jury and anticipates being ready for trial by March 2021. She states that she is uncertain as to how many witnesses she will be calling and whether she will call any expert witnesses. January 9, 2020 Defence counsel writes to the Chief Justice through her assistant, indicating that the defendant will be seeking to strike the jury notice. January 20, 2020 The Chief Justice conducts a telephone conference call with the parties.

The plaintiff’s daughter also participates. The plaintiff wishes to proceed with her motion for production of documents. Motion will be heard on March 16, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. Defence counsel does not agree to have discovery of defendant conducted by plaintiff’s daughter. The plaintiff intends to try to find counsel or conduct discovery on her own. Her daughter will attend as a support person. The plaintiff and her daughter will discuss potential dates. The plaintiff is not prepared to agree to a settlement conference. The defendant’s motion to strike the jury notice will be heard on April 1, 2020.

The parties will participate in a further telephone conference with C.J. Smith on January 23, 2020.

January 23, 2020 The Chief Justice conducts a telephone conference call with the parties and the plaintiff’s daughter. The following is discussed and agreed to:

(1) The plaintiff’s motion for production will not be proceeding on March 16, 2020. Within 7 days, the plaintiff or her daughter will advise whether the plaintiff wishes to proceed with the motion;

(2) The defendant’s motion to strike the jury notice will be adjourned without day;

(3) The plaintiff’s discovery examination of the defendant will take place on April 3, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. Defence counsel will take instructions from her client on issue of Ms. Marossis conducting the discovery on behalf of her mother. If agreement cannot be reached, a motion will have to be brought;

(4) The next case management conference will take place on April 3, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. Ms. Marossis will attempt to find a lawyer to represent her mother. C.J. Smith encourages the plaintiff and her daughter to, at the very least, obtain legal advice on the value of the plaintiff’s claim. March 19, 2020 The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia adopts an essential services model to protect the health and safety of court users and to help contain the spread of COVID-19. March 30, 2020 The Chief Justice contacts the parties to advise that the case management conference scheduled for April 3, 2020, has been cancelled.

She further advises that her assistant will contact the parties to reschedule once the current public health issues have normalized and the court’s

schedule has resumed. June 11, 2020 The Chief Justice’s assistant contacts the parties to reschedule the case management conference. June 15, 2020 The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia transitions to a safe service model. June 16, 2020 The Chief Justice’s assistant advises the parties that the case management conference has been rescheduled for July 30, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. July 30, 2020 Chief Justice Smith conducts case management conference with the parties and the plaintiff’s daughter in attendance. The following is discussed and agreed to:

(1) Arrangements will be made between the parties for the discovery examination of the defendant. Ms. Marossis will conduct the examination unless a motion is made by August 31, 2020, to have the matter formally determined;

(2) Due to the pandemic, Ms. Marossis had to curtail her efforts to find a lawyer to represent her mother. She is going to revive those efforts;

(3) Ms. Marossis will contact C.J. Smith’s assistant to obtain CDs of all the proceedings that have been held before C.J. Smith since she took over as case management judge;

(4) The next case management conference will take place via telephone on October 16, 2020, at 2:00 p.m.

(5) A settlement conference with C.J. Smith is tentatively booked for November 6, 2020, at 9:30 a.m.

July 31, 2020 The plaintiff writes to C.J. Smith’s assistant asking that she notify C.J. Smith that the plaintiff no longer wishes to participate in a settlement conference on November 6, 2020. August 31, 2020 Defence counsel writes to the court to advise that the defendant’s discovery is scheduled to take place in person on September 28, 2020. Ms. Marossis will participate virtually. October 22, 2020 Chief Justice Smith conducts case management conference by phone with the parties and the plaintiff’s daughter. The following is discussed and agreed to:

(1) Discovery of the defendant has taken place;

(2) Ms. Marossis is hopeful that her mother will soon be in a position to retain new counsel;

(3) The settlement conference scheduled for November 6, 2020, is cancelled. The option of rescheduling will be canvassed in the future;

(4) The plaintiff asks for a copy of the receipt showing that Dr. Koshi was paid for the IME. Defence counsel will attempt to obtain same;

(5) The plaintiff requests confirmation that Dr. Baker was paid for his neurological assessment of the plaintiff. Defence counsel advises that it was the

Section B adjuster who arranged for this assessment. The plaintiff gives consent for Ms. Mack to contact the adjuster to see if a copy of this invoice can be obtained;

(6) The Chief Justice explains to the plaintiff and her daughter that she has difficulty understanding the relevance of these receipts, however, attempts will be made to see if they can be obtained;

(7) C.J. Smith explains to the plaintiff and her daughter that while it would be preferable that the plaintiff have counsel to represent her, at some point the matter must proceed regardless of whether she has counsel;

(8) The next case management meeting is scheduled for November 13, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. November 13, 2020 Ms. Marossis emails the Chief Justice’s assistant to advise that she will not be able to join that day’s call due to a medical appointment. She further states: As I have discussed with my mother, it is in her best interest to find a lawyer outside of NS. I am currently in the process of speaking with my previous employer (which is a law firm in Toronto), for assistance and guidance. I also strongly feel at this point, my mother is very adamant about certain concerns with misconduct, etc.

I am reaching out to human rights for guidance and assistance. I think it would be best to have a lawyer advice my mother if she is correct/incorrect. If she is incorrect than I hope this helps to massage the situation further to resolve this. If she is correct in stating documents haven’t been filed with the courts correctly, and so on, then I believe she will require a human rights lawyer more than anything else at this point. Otherwise, I have strongly suggested with moving forward with a settlement so this may conclude.

Too my knowledge all requested documents that my mother is waiting on from the defendants have not been provided. [Errors in original]

November 13, 2020 Chief Justice Smith conducts a case management meeting by phone with the parties. C.J. Smith asks the plaintiff about Ms. Marossis’ progress in trying to find a lawyer for the plaintiff. The plaintiff says she recently met with two law firms in Halifax but both refused to take her on. She says Ms. Marossis is now sick and receiving treatment, so she is not sure what to do about finding a lawyer. Defence counsel expresses concern that Ms. Marossis is not attempting to retain a personal injury lawyer to represent her mother in a personal injury action. C.J.

Smith clarifies that the court is only dealing with issues arising from the motor vehicle accident, not human rights issues. Defence counsel suggests imposing a deadline for the plaintiff to find a lawyer, after which time the court may proceed with the plaintiff’s motion for product and the defendant’s motion to strike the jury notice. Defence counsel suggests February 2021. The plaintiff says defence counsel is refusing to provide certain documents arising from the defendant’s discovery.

Defence counsel states that there were no undertakings arising from the discovery, but that the plaintiff sent an email on October 29, 2020, requesting documents and information that defence counsel is refusing to provide. These requests include: • the name of the caregiver company and name of the manager that hired Ms. Ugursal in 2008-2009; • a copy of Ms. Ugursal’s psychology degree and the name of the hospital she was working at in Istanbul, Turkey in 2008; • various addresses where Ms.

Ugursal has resided in the past; and, • an itemized receipt for the costs award of $3,000 ordered by the court on November 27, 2019. C.J. Smith provides the plaintiff with a lengthy explanation of the concept of relevance. She notes that the defendant has admitted fault for the accident, which means only causation and damages are at issue in the litigation. She explains that if the plaintiff wishes to obtain information that is not being produced, she will need to bring a motion for production and establish that the documents are relevant. C.J.

Smith also cautions the plaintiff that if she is unsuccessful in such a motion, costs could be awarded against her. The plaintiff states that the defendant lied about a variety of topics at her discovery, and the plaintiff wants the information to show that the defendant is lying. The Chief Justice indicates that she will ask her assistant to arrange a future telephone conference with the parties and Ms. Marossis to obtain an update on whether the plaintiff has secured counsel in Ontario.

The court will also set dates for hearings on motion to strike the jury notice and the plaintiff will have to decide whether she still wants to bring the motion for production she filed in February 2019.

November 30, 2020 Chief Justice Smith conducts case management conference by phone with the parties and the plaintiff’s daughter. The following is discussed and agreed to:

(1) The plaintiff’s motion for production has not yet been heard. C.J. Smith asked the plaintiff whether she wishes to proceed with this motion. Ms. Marossis indicates that she does not feel that her mother is capable of deciding this, or any other matter, on her own. She asked that the motion be adjourned. C.J. Smith explains that the court will not require the plaintiff to proceed with the motion if she does not wish to do so. She advises the plaintiff that if she wishes to proceed with the motion she should ensure that it is heard prior to the Finish Date;

(2) Ms. Marossis asks for additional time to get help for her mother. She requests that the case be put on “pause” to see if she can find a lawyer for her mother. She asks to have until the end of February 2021 to try to get this help;

(3) Defence counsel confirms that her instructions are to proceed with moving the case forward toward trial. She wishes to proceed with the motion to strike the jury notice but has no difficulty giving the plaintiff some additional time to try to find a lawyer;

(4) Both parties are interested in a settlement conference. Ms. Marossis indicates that she is prepared to attend and would prefer that her mother also has a lawyer in attendance. C.J. Smith suggests that if the plaintiff is unable to retain a lawyer for the entire case, she should see if she can retain counsel for the limited purpose of a settlement conference;

(5) C.J. Smith suggests that a settlement conference be scheduled for some time after March 1, 2021. Ms. Marossis asks for a few weeks to discuss the issue with a colleague who has been advising her in relation to the matter. The case management conference is adjourned until December 14, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., at which time the scheduling of a settlement conference and the defendant’s motion to strike the jury notice will be discussed;

(6) Ms. Marossis questions whether her mother is capable of participating in this action at this time. C.J. Smith explains that if this is the case, the plaintiff should bring a motion to adjourn the matter;

(7) C.J. Smith indicates that she has had difficulty hearing the plaintiff by telephone and asks that the plaintiff and defence counsel attend the next case management conference in person. December 7, 2020 The plaintiff emails the Chief Justice’s assistant to indicate that her daughter will no longer be involved with case management conferences because it is too stressful for her. She also asks that she not be required to attend the next case management conference in person due to exhaustion and concerns about COVID- 19. December 7, 2020 The Chief Justice’s assistant emails the parties to advise that the next case management meeting will take place by telephone.

December 14, 2020 Chief Justice Smith conducts case management conference by phone. The following is discussed:

(1) The plaintiff indicates that her daughter will no longer be involved in case management conferences but will continue to attempt to find her mother a lawyer;

(2) The plaintiff anticipates that she will have difficulty finding a lawyer who will represent her. She agrees to notify the court immediately if she retains counsel;

(3) In view of the concerns previously raised by Ms. Marossis about her mother’s ability to participate effectively in the proceeding, C.J. Smith asked the plaintiff whether she intends to apply to adjourn the matter. The plaintiff indicates that she wishes to move the matter toward trial but would like time to prepare. The Chief Justice advises her that if, at any time, she feels that she is unable to participate in the proceeding, she should file a motion requesting an adjournment and the court will deal with it at that time. Otherwise, the court will assume that the plaintiff is content to proceed with the action;

(4) The plaintiff does not want to participate in a settlement conference. She does wish to arrange for a pre-trial conference. C.J. Smith indicates that the court must deal with the defendant’s motion to strike the jury notice before trial dates can be set. The motion is scheduled for March 16, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.;

(5) The plaintiff indicates that she is looking for information and documents that she requested at the defendant’s discovery. Defence counsel takes the position that the materials are not subject to production. C.J. Smith again explains to the plaintiff that if a party will not disclose information or documents that another party feels is relevant, the party seeking the materials must bring a motion for production. In an effort to avoid the expense of a formal motion, C.J.

Smith offers to review the list of items the plaintiff is seeking and to provide her informal, without prejudice, views of whether the information is producible. If the plaintiff is unhappy with those informal views, she is free to bring a formal motion for production. Defence counsel will send the list of items, her response to the request, as well as a copy of the discovery transcript. The parties confirm they have no difficulty with C.J. Smith reviewing the discovery transcript.

(6) The next case management conference will be held by telephone on January 15, 2021. At that time, the Chief Justice will give her informal views regarding the plaintiff’s requests for production.

January 15, 2021 Chief Justice Smith conducts case management conference by phone. The following is discussed:

(1) C.J. Smith provides her informal opinions concerning the relevance of the additional documentation sought by the plaintiff. After hearing her views, the plaintiff decides not to proceed with the motion for production;

(2) The plaintiff continues to express concern that her own discovery was over one day, and not two. Defence counsel agrees to again provide the plaintiff with copies of both invoices from the recording service and both discovery transcripts, at no cost;

(3) The plaintiff indicates that she wants to ensure that the defendant testifies at trial. C.J. Smith explains that unless defence counsel undertakes to call Ms. Ugursal as a witness, the only way to ensure that she testifies is if the plaintiff subpoenas her herself. The Chief Justice acknowledges that this raises practical issues for the plaintiff in terms of the rules relating to the questioning of witnesses. She suggests the plaintiff consider retaining a lawyer for the limited purpose of advising her on trial strategy, how to question witnesses, etc.;

(4) The Chief Justice expresses some concern that the plaintiff is not focusing on the matters that will be most important to the trial judge (causation and damages). C.J. Smith suggests the plaintiff conduct some study on the “collateral fact rule” and provides the parties with an

article relating to that rule. She further suggests the plaintiff consider retaining counsel to assist her in better understanding the rule;

(5) The defendant’s motion to strike the jury notice will be heard on March 16, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. March 10, 2021 The Chief Justice arranges for a recorded conference call with the parties. She informs defence counsel that her office assisted the plaintiff in preparing the title page and jurat for her affidavit for the upcoming motion after her materials were initially rejected by court staff. Defence counsel has no difficulty with this. The parties agree to appear in person for the motion. March 16, 2021 The Chief Justice hears the defendant’s motion to strike the jury notice.

The court adjourns until March 24 at 2:00 p.m. for oral decision on the motion. Before adjourning, C.J. Smith advises the plaintiff to begin thinking about who her witnesses will be at trial. She explains the difference between lay witnesses and expert witnesses. She also explains the concept of physicians’ narratives and provides the parties with a copy of her decision in Brown v. Nova Scotia Association of Health Organizations Long Term Disability Plan , 2020 NSSC 301 , which deals with physicians’ narratives.

March 22, 2021 The plaintiff emails the Chief Justice’s assistant to request that the March 24, 2021 date be rescheduled for two weeks later, as she is in contact with a lawyer who will be reviewing her file and may agree to act for her. Defence counsel consents to the adjournment. The oral decision is rescheduled for April 12, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. April 12, 2021 The Chief Justice delivers her decision ( 2021 NSSC 122 ) allowing the defendant’s motion to strike the jury notice. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

April 13, 2021 The Chief Justice writes to the parties enclosing a copy of her written decision on the defendant’s motion to strike the jury notice; a copy of Rule 54.06; a copy of a Civil Law Handbook for Self-Represented Litigants approved by the Canadian Judicial Council the previous week; an incomplete DAC form to show the plaintiff the types of questions asked during a DAC. C.J. Smith confirms that the next case management conference will take place over the telephone on May 11, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. At that time, C.J. Smith will be preparing the plaintiff for the upcoming DAC.

April 13, 2021 Defence counsel prepares a draft form of order reflecting the court’s decision on the motion to strike the jury notice. She asks the plaintiff to advise the court should she feel that the draft order is not an accurate reflection of the court’s ruling. April 15, 2021 The plaintiff emails the Chief Justice’s assistant to ask what defence counsel meant when she asked the plaintiff to advise the court should she feel that the draft order is not an accurate reflection of the court’s ruling. She also asks how many days she has to file an appeal if she disagrees with the court’s ruling.

April 19, 2021 Chief Justice Smith writes to the parties attaching a revised order that she has prepared and requesting that they contact her by noon on April 23, 2021, if either of them has any difficulty with the form of the order. She explains to the plaintiff that she is not asking whether the plaintiff agrees with the order itself, but whether she agrees that the order reflects the court’s decision. The Chief Justice also advises that the plaintiff has 10 days from the date the order is issued to file a Notice of Appeal if she wishes to appeal the decision.

She encloses a copy of Civil Procedure Rules 90.13 and 94. April 20, 2021 The plaintiff emails the Chief Justice’s assistant to request that she be given until April 30, 2021, to notify the court whether she objects to the form of the order. The Chief Justice grants the plaintiff until noon on April 30, 2021, to respond. April 28, 2021 The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia adopts an essential services model to protect the health and safety of court users and to help contain the spread of COVID-19. May 5, 2021 Chief Justice Smith issues the order striking the jury notice.

May 5, 2021 The Chief Justice’s assistant advises the parties that a telephone conference scheduled for May 11, 2021, will not proceed. She further states that she will contact the parties to reschedule once the current public health issues have normalized and the court’s

schedule has resumed. June 7, 2021 The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia returns to a safe services model. August 11, 2021 Chief Justice Smith’s assistant contacts the parties to

schedule an in-person case management meeting. Defence counsel responds on the same day with her availability.

August 20, 2021 The plaintiff writes to the Chief Justice’s assistant, stating: 1. I apologize for the delay to respond to the email of 2021-08-11, regarding scheduling date of in-person case management conference on above matter. 2. I have made a decision not to peruse anymore conferences for the time being, since I feel they have been one sided, Bias, for the favor of the defendants, that has cause serious issues to my case to be damaged. 3. I am requesting for my file to be reviewed/investigated, of misconducts, Mrs. Mack will come forward with the truth, of wrongful actions. 4. Mrs.

Mack will provide documents I have requested important to my case, that Mrs. Mack to date withholding. That is the purpose of CMCs for documents and direction. 5. I ham requesting for judicial review to my case as legally advised, a letter has been send out to Mrs. Mack and Hon. Chief Justice Smith. [Errors in original] August 20, 2021 The Chief Justice’s assistant advises the plaintiff that C.J. Smith is out of the office and will be returning on September 7, 2021. September 22, 2021 Chief Justice Smith writes to the parties in response to the plaintiff’s email of August 20, 2021.

She states that the purpose of the next case management conference is to help the plaintiff prepare for the DAC, but if the plaintiff is not interested in receiving that assistance, she will proceed to

schedule the DAC. C.J. Smith offers three potential dates in October and asks the parties to advise which date they prefer by September 29, 2021. September 22, 2021 Defence counsel’s assistant responds to C.J. Smith’s assistant, advising that Ms. Mack is unavailable on any of the suggested dates. She provides six potential dates in November. October 5, 2021 Ms. Marossis emails the Chief Justice’s assistant to advise that her mother is in Toronto and will not be returning to Nova Scotia until mid-November and is therefore unavailable on any of the dates offered.

She indicates that her mother will follow up with the court upon her return. Ms. Marossis also asks that Ms. Mack “provide the requested information Maria Panagopoulos has asked for several times from you regarding the discovery done on September 2020.” October 14, 2021 The Chief Justice writes to the parties to confirm their availability for November 16, 2021, at 2:00 p.m. She asks the plaintiff to confirm whether she would like to have assistance in preparing for the DAC. If so, C.J. Smith will provide that assistance on November 16. If not, C.J. Smith will conduct the DAC on November 16.

October 15, 2021 Defence counsel confirms her availability for November 16 at 2:00 p.m.

October 20, 2021 The plaintiff writes to the Chief Justice’s assistant as follows: I will attend the Date Assignment Conference on Nov. 16/ 21 at 2:00 P.M. I will consider accepting the assistance to prepare for the Date assignment conference as suggested. Meantime I am requesting to Mrs. Mack to comply and provide all information I have asked on several times for her to provide important information from the Ugursal Discovery. I am entitled to this information for my case, that is purpose of the Discovery.

October 23, 2021 The plaintiff emails the Chief Justice’s assistant indicating that she received legal advice that she should not participate in the upcoming case management conference. She writes, in part: I received legal advice on the matter of Date Assignment conference (for trial dates). That I should withdrawal of this conference that is scheduled on Nov. 16-21 at 2:00 P.M. On Grounds, I am not ready to proceed for trial dates, until Mrs. Mack will provide all necessary information requested by me several times without refusal.

Including the court to have the availability of Documents that were filed in 2017 that supposedly were Destroyed, Defendants Brief and other documents. Documents do not get destroyed by the court nor a judge has the legal right to order court staff to take such action under any circumstances. These documents are property to my ongoing case.

As the plaintiff I have that legal right to all documents are withheld relevant to my case. … My case/file needs to be on hold to be investigated because of obstruction of justice, this is a case that deals with proceedings of unjust conducts in and out of court, that the events are fully brought forward constantly by me. Destructive procedures: Example, Documents are filed with the courts regarding an ongoing case, never get destroyed. [Errors in original]

October 25, 2021 The Chief Justice writes to the parties to confirm that there will be an in-person case management conference on November 16 at 2:00 p.m. The plaintiff’s most recent email, as well as her request for additional information from the defendant, will be discussed. C.J. Smith will also assist in preparing the plaintiff for the eventual DAC. November 12, 2021 The plaintiff emails Chief Justice Smith’s assistant to advise that she will not attend the case management conference.

She writes: I will not attend the Case Management Conference on Nov. 16-21 regarding Date management assignment for reasons I already have addressed, such as Mrs. Mack has to provide documents I have requested numerous occasions Mrs. Mack is withholding. To set trial dates I am entitled to all requested important information from the defendants prior to set trial dates that concerns my case. this case cannot move forward for many issues of misconducts and negligence, I have already addressed Mrs. Mack does not comply with the law, the other matter that concern me is Mrs.

Mack is not to be representing this case, i have addressed this mater and why. The date of Nov. 16-21 i am requesting to be changed for Dec. or first week of Jan. that provides plenty of time for Mrs. Mack, or another lawyer from Aviva to take over the file that is scrutinised and respect my concerns and requests. I have suffer enough of abuses with these proceedings to date, with Obstruction of Justice. I have made myself available and truthful to date according to the law.

I am very sorry but I will not continue to take these abuses lightly, I have legal rights that have been constantly violated with this case. [Errors in original]

November 15, 2021 The Chief Justice writes to the parties with respect to the plaintiff’s email of November 12, 2021. She notes that the plaintiff continues to seek production of documents that were requested at the defendant’s discovery examination, and that defence counsel has taken the position that the additional materials are not subject to privilege. C.J. Smith refers to her previous letter of December 15, 2020, in which she explained that the plaintiff would need to bring a motion requesting an order requiring that the materials be produced.

Chief Justice Smith further states: As you will recall, in order to avoid the expense of a formal motion, I offered to review the list of items that you were seeking and give my informal, without prejudice, views of whether this information is producible. I did this on January 15 th , 2021 at which time you indicated that you had decided not to proceed with a motion for production. It appears that you now wish to proceed with a motion seeking this additional information/documentation from Ms. Ugursal. I intend to set a date for the hearing of that motion at the time of the Case Management Conference tomorrow.

You should attend court tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. if you would like me to set a date for this hearing. If you do not appear at that time, I will not be setting a date for the hearing in your absence. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WILL BE PROCEEDING TOMORROW REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU ATTEND. AT THAT TIME, I WILL BE SCHEDULING A DATE ASSIGNMENT CONFERENCE.

IF YOU WANT TO ENSURE THAT A DATE IS SELECTED THAT IS CONVENIENT FOR YOU, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU ATTEND TOMORROW AS SCHEDULED. [Emphasis in original] November 16, 2021 The Chief Justice writes to the parties to confirm the case management conference that took place that afternoon. She notes that the plaintiff chose not to participate, having emailed the court that morning to say she would not be attending. C.J. Smith states that if the plaintiff wishes to bring a motion requesting an order for production, she should contact her and a date will be set for the filing of documents and the hearing of the motion.

She advises the plaintiff that any such hearing should take place prior to the Finish Date, which will be set at the DAC. Chief Justice Smith writes: If you wish to advance this motion, Ms. Panagopoulos, I suggest that you do so soon. C.J. Smith indicates that an in-person DAC is scheduled for January 11, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. She identifies a list of questions the parties should be prepared to answer at that time. Before concluding, C.J. Smith refers the plaintiff to Rule 55 concerning the use of expert evidence, including physician’s narratives.

January 11, 2022 The plaintiff sends a lengthy email to the Chief Justice’s assistant indicating that she will not participate in the DAC. She states, in part: I made every effort to retain a lawyer, Unsuccessful There is refusal for an attorney to be involved with such an abused case to make an attempt to consider to represent me. The other serious issue, My case is not ready for me to agree tomorrow to be scheduling trial dates. I have requested very important information from Mrs.

Ugursal’s discovery, from the court and the defendants it is been refused. … i have made request for my file/case to be fully investigated, on misconducts, obstruction and miscarriage of justice. I will not attend to any further case management conferences till issues are acknowledged that my legal rights have been violated. My case is in jeopardy at this point.

I have been severely mistreated, abuse in court from Feb.05-2018 and forward to date. that has cause my health additional issues, of additional head pain, trauma, mistrust for the legal system, anxiety attacks, fear, uncertainty for my case to proceed for trial, of wrongful mishandling proceedings to benefit the defendants from beginning to end. [Errors in original] January 11, 2022 The Chief Justice writes to the parties regarding the plaintiff’s email and the DAC.

She advises the plaintiff that if she wishes to maintain her position that her case is not ready for trial dates, she will need to bring a motion under Rule 4.14(1) for an order refusing the defendant’s request for a DAC. C.J. Smith emphasizes that the motion must be filed with the court and served on defence counsel no later than January 31, 2022. C.J. Smith advises that she has scheduled a further court date of February 15, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. If the plaintiff has filed a motion under Rule 4.14(1), that motion will be heard on February 15.

If no such motion has been filed, the DAC will take place that day, regardless of whether the plaintiff appears. February 14, 2022 The plaintiff writes to the Chief Justice’s assistant attaching a seven-page email the plaintiff sent to defence counsel on the same date. The plaintiff writes: I have send this email to Mrs. Mack, expressing my experience of various mistreatment that has left my case in dire circumstances, and tremendously affected my health. I refuse to be part of tomorrows trial set dates.

At this point I do not have a lawyer to represent me, still because of misconducts, outcome of this case I will not blame my self. I am struggling to put this email together with assistance for days that has affected my head injuries, health with been distraught. Truly sorry for my absence for tomorrow and very disappointed, with the outcome of mistreatment I have received with this case to date. [Errors in original]

February 15, 2022 The DAC proceeds without the plaintiff. Trial dates are set for January 10, 11, 2023, and March 20, 21, 22, 23, and 27, 2023. A Trial Readiness Conference is scheduled for November 4, 2022. The Finish Date is October 4, 2022. February 16, 2022 The Chief Justice writes to the parties and confirms the DAC proceeded in the plaintiff’s absence. She outlines the trial dates, and, in bold text with yellow highlighting, writes: Ms. Panagopoulos, as Plaintiff, you will need to be ready to begin presenting your case on January 10 th , 2023.

If you do not appear that day, the court may dismiss your action and may award costs against you. It is, therefore, imperative that you attend the trial on January 10 th , 2023, and that you are ready to proceed with your case at that time. In relation to the Finish Date, C.J. Smith writes, in bold text with yellow highlighting: This date is important, Ms. Panagopoulos. Any pre-trial motions that you may wish to bring should be completed by October 4 th , 2022. In addition, a number of deadlines under the Civil Procedure Rules relate to the Finish Date.

For example, a party who wishes to offer expert opinion at trial must file an expert’s report no less than six months before the Finish Date. It is important that you keep this date in mind as the trial approaches. The Chief Justice notes that defence counsel undertook to call Ms. Ugursal as a witness at trial in the event the plaintiff opens her case. She also indicated that she will be calling one witness and introducing video evidence under Civil Procedure Rule 94.09. Finally, she also indicated that she will be calling Dr. Koshi as an expert witness. C.J.

Smith proceeds to provide general information on preparing for trial. She suggests the plaintiff attempt to hire an experienced litigation lawyer on a limited retainer basis to provide her with basic information on how to conduct a trial. She also suggests making another appointment at the court’s Free Legal Clinic and coming to the courthouse to watch how trials are conducted. C.J. Smith advises the parties that her role as case management judge has now concluded, and any new issues should be brought to the attention of Justice Scott C. Norton, who is the trial judge assigned to hear the matter.

October 31, 2022 The plaintiff emails Jessica Boutilier, Prothonotary, Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, stating that defence counsel has refused to provide her with very important documents that were filed with the court, including the defendant’s settlement brief filed on July 18, 2017. She states, in part: Mrs. Mack had plenty of time to disclose all requested documents that has been addressed in court by me. this case has been retailed my file needs to be investigated in full of malpractice and misconducts this matter has been requested as well, before we proceed for trial dates.

I am in the process of potential lawyer to be retained, the date of Nov.04- 2022 has to be rescheduled, meantime Mrs. Mack has to provide my documents of entitlement according to the law, A motion was filed in 2019 by me on this matters, several emails constantly at this time are send to Mrs. Mack as well they have been ignored. [Emphasis added] The email is forwarded to Justice Norton’s assistant who advises the plaintiff that she will bring it to his attention.

October 31, 2022 Justice Norton’s assistant emails the parties to confirm that the Trial Readiness Conference will be proceeding as scheduled on the record on November 4, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. November 4, 2022 Justice Norton conducts Trial Readiness Conference. The plaintiff says she is not ready for trial due to her medical condition and her mistreatment by the court on this file in the case management process. Justice Norton advises that she was given the necessary time and assistance for her to become ready for trial. He states that if she retains a lawyer, they can contact the court for a conference.

Otherwise, the trial will proceed as scheduled.

November 29, 2022 The plaintiff again emails Ms. Boutilier. In a lengthy email, she asks for information about who appoints judges for trials. She makes numerous allegations of bias and mistreatment by defence counsel, court staff, Justice Coughlan, and others. She states, in part: Documents that were filed with the court for trial prior to scheduled for Feb. 05-2018 settlement conference were destroyed after the legal abuse I received forced, by coercion to settle in a non intended conference.

There was no intention of such conference, simply I was set up to believe there was one by my lawyer, the defendants and the court.

Such important filed documents relevant to my case do not get destroyed, they a re sealed away from the public till trial, these documents I expect to be on file. … I believe I am entitled to an adjournment under these dire circumstances that will effect the merit of my case I will be served with bias/prejudice because of important information missing, including the legal Abuse, physical, mental, emotional financial by unjust illegal penalties during case management conferences I have endure that began Feb. 05-2018 that has been ignored and continues to this day by misconducts. … I want to know who is responsible with such duties in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia to investigate bring justice and a solution to my issues prior going to trial. … As the plaintiff my legal and constitution rights have been violated.

I expect the prothonotary to respond to this requested information. [Errors in original] December 8, 2022 Caroline McInnes, Provincial Prothonotary, Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, responds to the procedural questions in the plaintiff’s email. She advises the plaintiff that Justice Norton’s decision to refuse her adjournment request, made in the course of the Trial Readiness Conference, can only be reviewed by filing an appeal to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. She advises that the appeal period has expired, so the plaintiff would need to request permission to file the appeal beyond the deadline.

She further writes, in part: With respect to your question regarding documents filed for a settlement conference, I can clarify this for you. There are special Rules governing settlement conferences, including the materials submitted to the judge for the settlement conference. I refer you in particular to Rule 10.16, which explains the confidentiality attached to the settlement process. These Rules are in place for a variety of reasons, including to promote settlement and protect the privilege surrounding the settlement process.

As a result, the Rules do not allow settlement conference materials to be kept in Court file. They are submitted only for the settlement conference judge, and must be destroyed once the settlement conference has concluded.

January 3, 2023 The plaintiff emails Caroline McInnes and attempts to file a motion for anadjournment of the trial by email. Although she describes her request as an“appeal”, she asks that it be forwarded to the attention of Justice Norton. January 4, 2023 Ms. McInnes replies to the plaintiff, noting that she was out of the office the daybefore, and asked if the plaintiff had forwarded her email to Ms. Boutilier asdirected in Ms. McInnes’ out of office reply. January 4, 2023 The plaintiff emails Justice Norton’s assistant, requesting an adjournment of thetrial.

January 4, 2023 Justice Norton’s assistant replies to the plaintiff, indicating that he has read heremails, and that the trial will proceed as scheduled on January 10 and 11, 2023. January 5, 2023 The plaintiff emails Justice Norton’s assistant, again requesting an adjournment ofthe trial. January 9, 2023 The plaintiff emails Justice Norton’s assistant on the day before trial is scheduledto commence, again requesting that her case be adjourned. She says she is verysick and may have COVID. January 10, 2023 The court calls the plaintiff, on the record, in the presence of defence counsel.

Theplaintiff states, under oath, that she had been tested for COVID at the IWK the daybefore and would not receive her results until the afternoon. Justice Norton directsthat if she does not receive a positive test result, she is to attend for trial in personthe following day. January 11, 2023 The plaintiff fails to appear in person. When reached by phone, she indicates thather COVID-19 test was negative, but that she did not attend court because she isvery sick and incapable of representing herself.

[…]