IntelliView Technologies Inc v Badawy, 2018 ABQB 961

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: IntelliView Technologies Inc v Badawy, 2018 ABQB 961 Date: 20181130 Docket: 1601 07860 Registry: Calgary Between: IntelliView Technologies Inc. Applicant/Plaintiff - and - Wael Badawy Respondent/Defendant - and - Wael Badawy Plaintiff by Counterclaim - and - IntelliView Technologies Inc., Fideliter Inc., Bill Hews, Missing Link Ltd., Gord Edwards, and Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Defendants by Counterclaim

_______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice G.A. Campbell _______________________________________________________ Table of Contents I. Introduction . 3 II. Legal Principles - Court Access Restrictions . 5 III. Mr. Badawy is Not Credible . 9 IV. Mr. Badawy’s Preliminary Objections . 14 A. Alleged Defects in Service . 15 B. Third Parties and Their Conduct 15 C. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction or Should Not Consider Federal Court Litigation . 16 D. IntelliView has a Malicious Intention . 16 E. Conflicts of Interests . 16 F.

Denial of Proposed Joint Hearing Prohibits IntelliView’s Application . 17 V. Party’s Submissions . 17 A. Mr. Badawy . 17 B. IntelliView .. 19 VI. Mr. Badawy’s Abuse of Court Processes . 21 A. Prior Court Access Restrictions . 21 B. Hopeless and Futile Litigation . 22 C. Collateral Attacks . 25 D. Escalating Litigation . 25 E. Impossible or Disproportionate Remedies . 26 F. Persistent and Unsuccessful Appeals . 26 G. Unsubstantiated Allegations of Wrongdoing, Impropriety, Corruption, and Bias . 26 H. Judge Shopping . 27 I. Failure to Comply with Court Orders . 27 J. Bad Litigation Intent 27 VII.

Appropriate Court Access Restrictions . 28 VIII. Costs . 33 IX. Conclusion . 33 I. Introduction [ 1 ] On 14 August 2018, the Plaintiff in this action [the Action], IntelliView Technologies Inc. [IntelliView], filed an application [IntelliView’s Application] seeking that the Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim, Wael Badawy [Mr. Badawy], be declared a vexatious litigant and be made subject to court access restrictions by what is sometimes called a “vexatious litigant order”. IntelliView

submits such an order is appropriate given Mr. Badawy’s litigation activities in the Alberta Courts, Federal Courts, and the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 2 ] Mr. Badawy disagrees with IntelliView’s allegation. He says all his litigation is proper and lawful. He instead argues that IntelliView’s Application is improper and ought to be dismissed. [ 3 ] IntelliView’s Application was scheduled to be heard on 13 September 2018.

Prior to that date, counsel for IntelliView contacted both the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and the Federal Court on 22 August 2018 and proposed that since IntelliView was making parallel applications in both jurisdictions, judicial economy could be achieved by a joint hearing of these two courts. [ 4 ] Associate Chief Justice Rooke [Rooke ACJ], on behalf of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, responded on 27 August 2018 [Rooke ACJ’s Letter] that, in light of the different court access restriction procedures and legal tests applied by the Federal Court and the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, a joint hearing was not appropriate for these applications.

Rooke ACJ concluded: Thank you for suggesting the “concurrent hearing” procedure. Someday soon we may have a National protocol to do just that, but I regret that day is not here yet, in my view. Finally, Counsel’s efforts to make efficient use of court resources is always appreciated. [ 5 ] IntelliView’s Application was made under Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2, ss 23-23.1.

However, this Court no longer relies on that authority to order court access restrictions: Templanza v Ford , 2018 ABQB 168 at paras 99-103 , 69 Alta LR (6th); 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee) , 2017 ABQB 548 at paras 42-79 , 283 ACWS (3d) 55; Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque , 2018 ABQB 311 at paras 11-14 , aff’d 2018 ABCA 257 ; Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque , 2018 ABQB 821 at paras 78-83 ; Lee v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 ABQB 464 at para 13 ; Hill v Bundon , 2018 ABQB 506 at para 52 ; Toller v Hnatiuk , 2018 ABQB 430 at para 31 ; Lymer (Re) , 2018 ABQB 859 at paras 33-36 . [ 6 ] This fact was noted in Rooke ACJ’s Letter and the parties proceeded forward on that understanding in their subsequent submissions. [ 7 ] On 13 September 2018, hearing of IntelliView’s Application commenced [the September Appearance]. [ 8 ] During the September Appearance, Mr.

Badawy expressed many concerns with the process to date, in particular, that he had not been properly served relevant materials. However, Mr.

Badawy did acknowledged receipt of the following materials filed in support of IntelliView’s Application: Brief of Law and Argument [IntelliView’s Brief] filed on 23 August 2018, Affidavit of William Hews, affirmed 7 August 2018 and filed 14 August 2018 [Hews’ Affidavit], Affidavit of Truth, affirmed by William Hews on 7 August 2018 and filed on 14 August 2018 [Hews’ Affidavit of Truth]; and Two Supplementary Binders of Materials, which include 51 documents, most of which are court documents previously filed in this Action [the Two Supplementary Binders]. [ 9 ] The Two Supplementary Binders were provided to Mr.

Badawy at the September Appearance. IntelliView’s other supporting material noted above had been provided to Mr. Badawy in advance of the September Appearance. [ 10 ] To ensure Mr. Badawy had a full opportunity to reply and make his case, it was proposed that IntelliView’s Application be determined on the basis of written material alone, obviating the need for the court to hear subsequent supplementary oral submissions. Both IntelliView and Mr. Badawy agreed to the court deciding IntelliView’s Application on the basis of the parties’ written material alone. [ 11 ] Mr.

Badawy was then given until 1 October 2018 to file any further affidavit evidence and his written argument. IntelliView was given until 10 October 2018 to file any responding argument, again in writing. [ 12 ] During the September Appearance an Interim Court Filings Restrictions Order [the Interim Court Restrictions Order] was issued against Mr. Badawy. [ 13 ] Mr.

Badawy submitted materials to the Court on a number of occasions before and after the September Appearance in support of his opposition to IntelliView’s Application as follows: Letter dated 23 August 2018 indicating IntelliView’s Application conflicts with other court orders and challenging the factual and legal basis for that application. Mr. Badawy demanded that the court access restriction process be cancelled or adjourned. Letter and Brief Argument dated 31 August 2018 stating that IntelliView’s Application is an abuse of court processes [Badawy’s August Brief]. Letter and Affidavit affirmed by Mr.

Badawy on 6 September 2018 [Badawy’s September 6 Affidavit] in which Mr. Badawy advised of his intent to strike out IntelliView’s Application on many bases, including allegations of defective service and lawyer misconduct. Affidavit affirmed by Mr. Badawy on 10 September 2018 [Badawy’s September 10 Affidavit] which largely spoke to questions of service of documents on him by IntelliView. Affidavit affirmed by Mr. Badawy on 28 September 2018 [Badawy’s September 28 Affidavit] in which he requests a “voice voce” hearing of IntelliView’s Application and that the Interim Court Restrictions Order be vacated.

Some of Badawy’s September 28 Affidavit contains argument, rather than statements of knowledge.

Brief of Law and Argument of Mr. Badawy dated 1 October 2018 [Badawy’s October Brief]. Letter dated 4 October 2018 concerning service on counsel for IntelliView of Mr. Badawy’s materials in relation to IntelliView’sApplication. Letter dated 9 October 2018 [Badawy’s October Letter] setting out concerns he has with counsel for IntelliView. [14] In a letter dated 9 October 2018, counsel for IntelliView advised the court and Mr. Badawy that she had no furthersubmissions in relation to the material filed by Mr. Badawy, including Badawy’s October Brief, though she stated that Mr.

Badawy’sdocuments include “material inaccuracies and misrepresentations”. [15] With the receipt of written material from the parties as directed, I considered IntelliView’s Application. [16] First, I note that document-based argument is a standard practice for the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench when evaluating thepotential need for court access restrictions: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 335 at para 105; Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust, 2017 ABQB436 at paras 60-62; Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque, 2018 ABQB 311 at para 28, aff’d 2018 ABCA 257. [17] Second, in my consideration of the relief sought by IntelliView, I reviewed the law in Alberta concerning court accessrestrictions.

I evaluated a range of arguments and complaints Mr. Badawy has advanced in his materials about IntelliView’s Applicationand the process followed. I examined Mr. Badawy’s activities for indicia of abusive litigation, and evaluated whether or not court accessrestrictions should be ordered in relation to this litigant, and, if so, what is the appropriate scope of those restrictions. [18] For the reasons that follow, I declare Mr. Badawy to be a vexatious litigant and impose court access restrictions on him. II.

Legal Principles - Court Access Restrictions [19] The authority to impose court access restrictions is an element of the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to control its ownprocesses: Ebert v Birch & Anor, [1999] EWCA Civ 3043 (UK CA); Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors (No 2), [2003] EWCA Civ 1113 (UKCA); Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 at paras 14-25, 273 ACWS (3d) 533, leave denied 2017 ABCA 63, leave to appeal to SCCrefused, 37624 (2 November 2017); Household Trust Co v Golden Horse Farms Inc (1992), (BC CA), 13 BCAC302, 65 BCLR (2d) 355 (BCCA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, 23022 (19 November 1992); Tremblay v Charest, 2006 QCCA 204 atpara 6, 147 ACWS (3d) 413, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 31410 (22 June 2006); British Columbia (Attorney General) v Lindsay,2007 BCCA 165 at paras 24, 28-30, 238 BCAC 254, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 32026 (15 November 2007); Extra Gift ExchangeInc v Ernest & Twins Ventures (PP) Ltd, 2014 BCCA 228 at para 32, 357 BCAC 55; Tupper v Nova Scotia (Attorney General), 2015NSCA 92 at para 27, 390 DLR (4th) 651, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36761 (10 March 2016); Ayangma v Canada Health Infoway,2017 PECA 13 at paras 62-63, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38030 (4 October 2018); Gichuru v Pallai, 2018 BCCA 78 at paras 74-81, leave to appeal to SCC filed, 38123 (4 May 2018); Peoples Trust Company v Atas, 2018 ONSC 58 at para 41. [20] Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 sets out the modern approach to court access restrictions issued under this Court’s inherentjurisdiction.

The most common court access restriction prohibits a person from initiating or continuing litigation, except where thatindividual has obtained permission, or “leave”, from the court to do so. This is a prospective gatekeeper step where the court concludesthat it is plausible that an individual will engage in further abuse of court processes: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 at paras 36-37;1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 548 at paras 42-75.

More stringent restrictions are also appropriate wherethey are proportionate to the anticipated future litigation abuse: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 at para 34; Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors(No 2). [21] Court access restrictions may be ordered where a litigant has exhibited “indicia” of abusive litigation.

Chutskoff v Bonora,2014 ABQB 389 at para 92, 590 AR 288, aff’d 2014 ABCA 444, 588 AR 303, reviews 11 “indicia” categories: 1. collateral attacks, 2. hopeless proceedings, 3. escalating proceedings, 4. bringing proceedings for improper purposes, 5. initiating “busybody” lawsuits to enforce alleged rights of third parties, 6. failure to honour court-ordered obligations, 7. persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions, 8. persistently engaging in inappropriate courtroom behaviour, 9. unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and misconduct, 10. scandalous or inflammatory language in pleadings or before the court, and 11. advancing Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) strategies. [22] Additional indicia categories have been identified in subsequent decisions of Canadian courts:

1. using court processes to further illegal activities ( Re Boisjoli , 2015 ABQB 629 at paras 98-103 , 29 Alta LR (6th) 334; Rothweiler v Payette , 2018 ABQB 288 at para 35 ; McKechnie (Re) , 2018 ABQB 677 at paras 3 , 30); 2. “judge shopping” ( Onischuk (Re) , 2017 ABQB 659 at para 18 ; McCargar v Canada , 2017 ABQB 729 at paras 8-9 , 68 Alta LR (6th) 305; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 at paras 23-28 ; Bourque v Tensfeldt , 2018 ABQB 419 at paras 17-18 ; Lymer (Re) , at paras 72- 75 ); 3. “forum shopping” ( 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee) , 2017 ABQB 548 at paras 91-97 ; MacLeod v Bank of Montreal , 2018 ONSC 5795 at para 7 ); 4. bad faith litigation strategies to pre-empt, divert, or sabotage proceedings that address court access restrictions ( Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque , 2018 ABQB 821 at paras 159-160 , 175); 5. where a litigant indicates an intention to engage in future abuse of court processes ( Lofstrom v Radke , 2017 ABCA 362 at para 8 ; Van Sluytman v Muskoka (District Municipality) , 2018 ONCA 32 at paras 23-24 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38057 (1 November 2018); Templanza v Ford , at para 120 ; Rothweiler v Payette , at paras 42-44 ; ET v Calgary Catholic School District No 1 , 2017 ABCA 349 at para 11 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38081 (8 November 2018); Lee v Canada (Attorney General) , at para 148 ); 6. where litigation has a political focus and is directed towards acknowledgement and correction of perceived government shortcomings, rather than asserting a right recognized in law ( Van Sluytman v Muskoka (District Municipality) , at paras 23-24 ; Rothweiler v Payette , at para 36 ); 7. where the litigant minimizes or dismisses litigation defects and abuse on the basis that the person is a self-represented litigant ( Van Sluytman v Muskoka (District Municipality) , at paras 23-24 ; Re Bruce , 2018 ABQB 283 at paras 8-9 ; Alberta Treasury Branches v Hawrysh , 2018 ABQB 618 at paras 36-46 ); and 8. employing proxy actors to circumvent court orders, court access restrictions, impede litigation, and improperly communicate with the court ( Onischuk v Edmonton (City) , 2017 ABQB 647 at paras 24-25 , 32; Onischuk (Re) , at paras 11, 21 ; MacKinnon v Bowden Institution , 2018 ABQB 144 at paras 44-85 , 71 Alta LR (6th) 267). [ 23 ] A decision to impose court access restrictions requires a broad-based inquiry into the litigation activities of the litigant for those restrictions.

A court may refer to external evidence, including: 1. activities both inside and outside of the courtroom ( Bishop v Bishop , 2011 ONCA 211 at para 9 , 200 ACWS (3d) 1021, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 34271 (20 November 2011); Henry v El , 2010 ABCA 312 at paras 2-3 , 5, 193 ACWS (3d) 1099, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 34172 (14 July 2011); 2. the litigant’s entire public dispute history ( Thompson v International Union of Operating Engineers Local No 995 , 2017 ABCA 193 at para 25 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37974 (7 June 2018)), including:

a) litigation in other jurisdictions ( McMeekin v Alberta (Attorney General) , 2012 ABQB 456 at paras 83-127 , 543 AR 132; Curle v Curle , 2014 ONSC 1077 at para 24 ; Fearn v Canada Customs , 2014 ABQB 114 at paras 102-105 , 586 AR 23; Hill v Bundon , at paras 68-80, 91-96 ; Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque , 2018 ABQB 821 at paras 41-51 );

b) non-judicial proceedings ( Bishop v Bishop , at para 9 ; Thompson v International Union of Operating Engineers Local No 995 , at paras 24-25 ); and

c) public records that are a basis for judicial notice ( Wong v Giannacopoulos , 2011 ABCA 277 at para 6 , 515 AR 58); and 3. whether the person has previously engaged in abusive litigation conduct, and/or was declared a “vexatious litigant” or made subject to court access restrictions: Canada v Olumide , 2017 FCA 42 at para 37 , [2017] GSTC 17; Hill v Bundon , at paras 68-80 ; Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque , 2018 ABQB 821 at paras 153-158 ; Fabrikant v Canada , 2018 FCA 171 at paras 14-15 . [ 24 ] Any indicium is a basis for the Court to evaluate whether or not intervention is warranted to control future abusive litigation.

The presence of multiple indicia generally favours court intervention: e.g. Chutskoff v Bonora , at paras 131-132 ; Re Boisjoli , at para 104 ; Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 ABQB 237 at para 158 , 54 Alta LR (6th) 135, appeal abandoned, Edmonton 1603- 0287AC (Alta CA). [ 25 ] The preferred approach is prospective rather than punitive: 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee) , 2017 ABQB 548 at paras 42-76 ; Templanza v Ford , at paras 102-104 .

When evaluating whether court access limitations are appropriate, a court asks what can be anticipated from a litigant: ... when a court considers limits to future court access by a person with a history of litigation misconduct the key questions for a court are: 1. Can the court determine the identity or type of persons who are likely to be the target of future abusive litigation? 2. What litigation subject or subjects are likely involved in that abuse of court processes? 3. In what forums will that abuse occur? ( Hok v Alberta , 2016 ABQB 651 at para 36 ) ...

Court access restrictions are designed in a functional manner and not restricted to formulaic approaches, but instead respond in a creative, but proportionate, manner to anticipated potential abuse ...

(Rothweiler v Payette, at para 45, referencing Bhamjee v Forsdick (No 2)). [26] Plausible future litigation abuse may be suggested by a person’s litigation history (issues, targets and forums where abuse maybe anticipated). However, the critical issue is what the court can anticipate.

Therefore, statements of intent, motivation, political ideology,and behavioural pathology are also in some instances highly relevant: 1985 Sawridge Trust v Alberta (Public Trustee), 2017 ABQB 548at paras 42-79. [27] As previously indicated, the usual court access limitation placed on an abusive litigant is a requirement that the litigant mustseek permission - “leave”- prior to initiating a new action or application, or continuing an existing lawsuit.

This is a very modestimposition on a problematic litigant: Hok v Alberta, 2016 ABQB 651 at paras 32-33; Wong v Giannacopoulos, at para 8; Canada vOlumide, at paras 26-29; Bossé v Immeubles Robo Ltée, at para 38 (NBCA). [28] Courts have, in certain instances, gone further and ordered additional restrictions on problematic litigants, including: 1. representation by a lawyer as a pre-requisite of submitting a leave application, 2. representation by a lawyer for filing any document, 3. payment of outstanding court costs as a precondition to future litigation steps, 4. requiring payment into court of security for costs, 5. personal appearance of the abusive litigant in court proceedings, and 6. prohibitions on being inside or near court facilities. [29] The requirement of legal representation has been ordered in instances where a litigant has engaged in a range of misconduct,including: 1. an established pattern of meritless and persistent filings, or improper communications with the courts (Boe v Boe, 2014 BCCA 208,356 BCAC 217, leave to appeal to SCC denied, 36048 (26 February 2015); Re Boisjoli; Onischuk v Edmonton (City); Onischuk (Re);Re Gauthier, 2017 ABQB 555, aff’d 2018 ABCA 14; Templanza v Ford; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board, 2018 ABQB220; Hoessmann v Aldergrove Credit Union, 2018 BCCA 218; Lee v Canada (Attorney General); Hill v Bundon; McKechnie (Re),2018 ABQB 677; Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque, 2018 ABQB 821; Potvin (Re), 2018 ABQB 834; Lymer (Re)); 2. attempts to enforce fictional OPCA claims on a target (Re Boisjoli; Re Gauthier; Potvin (Re)); 3. attempts to use court processes to further criminal activities (Re Boisjoli; McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 677); 4. employing proxies in problematic litigation (Onischuk v Edmonton (City); Re Onischuk); 5. abuse of habeas corpus on more than one occasion (Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General); Re Gauthier; Lee v Canada(Attorney General)), or 6. where an abusive litigant is a “litigation terrorist” who engages in meritless litigation intended to intimidate and/or cause harm (Leev Canada (Attorney General); McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 677; Lymer (Re)). [30] When a court contemplates the possibility of court access restrictions in addition to a requirement to obtain leave, that stepmust also be balanced against the predicted likelihood and the form of the bad litigation conduct: Bhamjee v Forsdick & Ors (No 2), atpara 35; Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General), at para 95; Ayangma v Canada Health Infoway, at para 62.

The safety and operationof the Courts may also be relevant: McKechnie (Re), 2018 ABQB 677 at paras 41-51. III. Mr. Badawy is Not Credible [31] As a first preliminary point, I conclude that Mr. Badawy is not credible. As a consequence, I put little to no weight on hisaffidavit evidence, unless it is corroborated in some manner. Where a statement by Mr. Badawy conflicts with that of another witness ordocument, I reject Mr. Badawy’s evidence, unless, again, Mr. Badawy’s evidence is in some manner independently supported orconfirmed. [32] I come to this conclusion because Mr.

Badawy is simply untruthful in his representations to the Court. He makesdemonstrably false claims. I conclude he believes doing so is to his advantage. [33] In my review of this Action’s materials, I identified many issues with Mr. Badawy’s evidence and statements. I will illustratethat with several examples. [34] Mr. Badawy says he litigates in good faith. However, his conduct indicates otherwise. A strong illustration of that point is Mr.Badawy’s registering certain intellectual property interests, which he then attempted to enforce with lawsuits in the Federal Court.

Thisactivity occurred in parallel to a separate ongoing high-conflict matrimonial dispute between Mr. Badawy and his former wife, GhadaHamdy Nafie [Ms. Nafie]. [35] The problem, succinctly, is Mr. Badawy filed Canadian Intellectual Property Office [CIPO] registrations of a copyright andtrademarks in the name of his former wife’s counsel and the law firms where that counsel worked. Mr. Badawy later attempted toenforce those registrations with a lawsuit: Badawy v Igras, Calgary T-1289-14 (FC). That action was subsequently struck out: Badawy v

Igras , 2017 FC 609 . [ 36 ] In Badawy’s October Brief, Mr. Badawy responds to criticism of this litigation by saying the Federal Court action “... was filed to comply with the orders of the Justice Robert Hall, Case Management of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. ...”. Mr. Badawy continues: Furthermore, [counsel for Ms. Nafie] made oral and written submissions before Justice Dario ... that I created and I used this trademark and copyrights since 2001. [Counsel for Ms. Nafie] is called to be a lawyer in 2006 and started to use the same trademark in 2014. ... [ 37 ] In Badawy’s September 28 Affidavit, Mr.

Badawy makes this claim: ... I created and own my trademarks and copyrights since 2001 and before I met [counsel for Ms. Nafie] in 2012 and for the first time AND [counsel for Ms. Nafie] started to use my Trademarks in 2014 after he had unauthorized access to my mail ... [ 38 ] There are many issues with Mr. Badawy’s claims. [ 39 ] First, I do not accept that any justice of this court would order a person to initiate litigation in a different court. That claim is baseless. I note this is not an isolated example of this exact type of false statement. Paragraph 2 of a Statement of Claim filed by Mr.

Badawy in Badawy v Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (15 December 2017), Calgary T-1965-17 (FC) reads: The Office of the Honourable Chief Justice of Alberta directed me to initiate an action before the court to stop the court system from infringing the Copyright owned by the Plaintiff I do not accept that Chief Justice Fraser would give any such instruction. [ 40 ] Second, Mr. Badawy’s claims about use of the trademark in question are disingenuous. Why would Mr.

Badawy, in some moment of prescience, obtain copyright and trademark for a business named for a lawyer he has never met? [ 41 ] Third, Mr. Badawy’s statements are logically and demonstrably false. While it is true Mr. Badawy obtained a copyright (“IGRAS Family Law”, Copyright Registration #1139071) and trademark (“Igras Family Law”, CIPO Trademark Registration #1673473) which duplicate the name of the law firm, “Igras Family Law”, retained by his former wife, Mr. Badawy did not do so in 2001. The CIPO copyright register indicates the #1139071 copyright was filed on 30 March 2017.

The #1673473 trademark was filed on 22 April 2014, and approved and advertised in March 2016. [ 42 ] It gets worse. With trademarks, the person filing the trademark application must indicate the kind of business with which that trademark is affiliated. Mr.

Badawy says in his trademark registration that his “use” of “Igras Family Law” (#1673473), starting in 2001, is: (1) arranging subscriptions of the online publications of others (2) online electronic publishing of books and periodicals; providing online non-downloadable comic books and graphic novels, providing on-line non-downloadable general feature magazines; publication of electronic books and journals on-line; publication of electronic newspapers accessible via a global computer network; publication of the editorial content of sites accessible via a global computer network; electronic publishing of books and periodicals [ 43 ] That business description is entirely inconsistent with the name of the trademarked business.

Mr. Badawy failed to offer any hint of evidence to substantiate this purported business activity. [ 44 ] It gets still worse. Mr. Badawy has yet another trademark filing in the CIPO database related to his former wife’s counsel, namely: “Richmond Chickloski Igras Moldowan LLP” (CIPO Trademark Registration #1643575), which was filed in 2013, and after several defaults was approved and advertised in June 2018. This is the name of his former wife’s counsel’s former law firm, though Mr. Badawy’s application indicates the purported business activities associated with his trademark are:

(1) Computer software for assisting developers in creating program code for use in multiple application programs; computer software for controlling and managing access server applications; computer software for database management; computer software for running development programs and application programs in a common development environment; computer software for use in managing and controlling production schedules, shipping schedules, purchase of materials, inventories and accounts; computer software for work processing; security software, namely, prevention of computer risk and computer security software. [ 45 ] I have no difficulty in concluding that these intellectual property registrations were not made by Mr.

Badawy for their purported purpose. He registered the business names of his former wife’s counsel in an attempt to harass that lawyer. Similarly, Mr. Badawy, with no legitimate purpose, registered “IFL Igras Family Law Ltd” as Federal and extra-provincial Alberta corporations. [ 46 ] I am not the first judge to conclude these were not valid intellectual property registrations. In Badawy v Igras , 2017 FC 609 at para 18 , Manson J concluded there was no evidence that Mr. Badawy uses the Igras Family Law trademark in association with either goods or services.

Justice Manson continues (paras 44-47): ... there is no evidence aside from bald statements in an affidavit sworn by Mr. Badawy ... that Mr. Badawy ever used the IFL Mark ... Further, there is no evidence to support Mr. Badawy’s claim that the trademark was used or made known in Canada as early as 2001. The evidence shows that, contrary to allegations of use, Mr. Badawy began his activities regarding the IFL Mark ... when [counsel for Ms. Nafie] informed Mr. Badawy and the ABQB that he was becoming a sole practitioner, who would be practicing under the trademark “Igras Family Law”. ...

I find that the Badawy Affidavit ... lacks any semblance of valid or credible evidence. ... It is clear from the Badawy Affidavit, from

statements made in Mr. Badawy’s memorandum of fact and law, the hearing, and from Mr. Badawy’s history with his Court, that Mr. Badawy has no basis for asserting any unregistered, valid trademark rights ... ... I find that, on a balance of probability, Mr. Badawy did not use the IFL Mark in association with goods or services as alleged. ... [ 47 ] Another example of Mr. Badawy being dishonest in his submissions is found in Badawy’s September 28 Affidavit. He deposes at para 29: ...

On March 8, 2018 Justice McVeigh disqualified Borden Ladner Gervais LLP from making any submission and Borden Ladner Gervais LLP was removed from the advocate bench. ... [Sic] [ 48 ] Similar and equally incorrect claims are made in Badawy’s October Brief (at para 46) and in Badawy’s October Letter. [ 49 ] What actually occurred on that date, and Justice McVeigh’s conclusion as to whether IntelliView’s counsel was disqualified, is found in the reported Badawy v 1038482 Alberta Ltd , 2018 FC 807 decision at paras 31-34 : The Plaintiff moved to have BLG disqualified for conflict of interest reasons (in particular, for breach of the Bright Line Rule). ...

Counsel from BLG who is the subject of the Plaintiff’s motion voluntarily did not present argument at the hearing as requested by the Court . Counsel from another firm presented their argument on the Motion to Strike. ... As I have dismissed the Plaintiff’s amended Statement of Claim, his motion for removal is moot , and therefore, it is unnecessary for me to consider it. In addition, the Plaintiff has not convinced me that any counsel need to be removed . [Emphasis added.] [ 50 ] A further illustration of this pattern of untruths is that in Badawy’s October Brief, Mr.

Badawy observes that a number of court access restriction orders against him were set aside by the Alberta Court of Appeal. That is true, but what Mr. Badawy does not mention is those orders were immediately replaced by a further more expansive court access restriction order issued by Martin JA ( Nafie v Badawy (21 May 2015), Calgary 1401-0098-AC (ABCA)), which remains in effect to the present day. [ 51 ] Another instance where Mr. Badawy has shown himself not to be a truthful or reliable witness involves whether or not he has provided what IntelliView has described as “legal coaching”. Mr.

Hews in the Hews’ Affidavit identifies a website operated by Mr. Badawy, “Standforyourself.com”, which states as follows: The WIN your case court coaching system The court coaching step-by-step system to guarantee your result in Court. Protect your rights, enjoy your freedom, and fulfill your obligations [ 52 ] The Hews’ Affidavit attaches as an exhibit printouts of the “Standforyourself.com” website, which illustrates promotional material for a book titled “The Non-Legal Guide to Win Your Case - Proven Strategies to Guarantee Results in Court Litigation”.

An excerpt from that material states: IN THESE PAGES YOU WILL UNCOVER A step-by-step system to empower self-represented litigants to better manage their cases and maximize their chances to win in court. A proven strategy on how to approach the court system. A guide on how to cost-effectively retain and access lawyers. The taxonomy and language used in the court system. Etiquette and protocols of courts and litigation. Access to complementary online materials including a tool kit that guarantees best results. [ 53 ] Mr. Badawy rejected this evidence.

In Badawy’s October Brief he contends: I do NOT provide any legal advice or prepare any document to be filed in the Alberta Court of Queen Bench because I am not registered with the Alberta Law of Society. AND There is no evidence before the Court suggesting that ... [Sic] [ 54 ] Mr. Badawy deposed in Badawy’s September 28 Affidavit at para 32 that: ... I was part of the National Self Represented Litigant Project of the Department of Justice that is operated form the University of Windsor. ... AND there is no such a book published.

AND William Hews has to produce the book that he claims. [Sic] [ 55 ] It turns out that at least part of what Mr. Badawy has to say here is true. He is affiliated with the National Self Represented Litigant Project [NSRLP], which is an organization that publishes reports about self-represented litigants, and that is well known to the Court as an advocate for unrepresented persons. The NSRLP website includes a “National Directory of Professionals Assisting SRLs”. Mr. Badawy is listed there as: Name: Wael Badawy City: Calgary Province: Alberta Type of Professional: Other

Services offered: Coaching Contact Info: www.standbyyourself.com badawy@standbyyourself.com 403.991.8366 [ 56 ] It appears that Mr. Badawy, by his own evidence, is providing services directed toward self-represented litigants. [ 57 ] More telling, Mr. Badawy filed with the courts information that indicates the opposite of his claim that he is not involved in providing some kind of legal services. Mr. Badawy recently filed an unusual and irregular Statement of Claim in Federal Court: Badawy v the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (15 December 2017), Calgary T-1965-17.

Atypical for a pleading, this document includes scanned copies of parts of transcripts. One transcript page includes this passage: ... Exhibit H, you have Stand for Yourself I just state that we also have a video, which we -- we will be seeking to enter as an exhibit, where Mr. Badawy sits there and -- and talks about Win -- so I’m sorry, this company is Stand for Yourself, and indicates that he has 4,500 clients in this company, and that company provides legal advice or legal services to people of some type. [ 58 ] I am not the first judge of this Court to find that Mr.

Badawy is not a credible or reliable witness. [ 59 ] On 8 January 2018 the parties to this action appeared before Justice McCarthy on an application in which the question was whether a default judgment should be set aside because Mr. Badawy had not served his Counterclaim, and had filed a false Affidavit of Service: IntelliView Technologies Inc v Badawy (8 January 2018), Calgary 1601-07860 (Alta QB). [ 60 ] Mr. Badawy denied any wrongdoing, and explained that he had delivered that document to the office of IntelliView’s lawyers. In Mr.

Badawy’s opinion, any fault belonged to counsel for IntelliView: “I have no control on how they manage their operation.” Justice McCarthy rejected Mr. Badawy’s submission, granted the application setting aside the default judgment and ordered $2,000.00 in costs for that hearing. [ 61 ] Because of these and other false and misleading statements in Mr. Badawy’s materials I conclude that he is not a credible or reliable witness. [ 62 ] As previously indicated, in the main analysis that follows, I put no weight on Mr. Badawy’s affidavit evidence unless it has some independent corroboration.

Where evidence conflicts, I prefer the evidence of the alternative deponent to that of Mr. Badawy. IV. Mr. Badawy’s Preliminary Objections [ 63 ] Since the filing of IntelliView’s Application, Mr. Badawy has sent to the Court a number of communications, variously called letters, affidavits, and briefs. Their contents are often best described as argument rather than facts. In these communications, Mr. Badawy challenges the appropriateness of IntelliView’s Application on a number of bases. [ 64 ] In assessing Mr. Badawy’s complaints, the document(

s) in which Mr. Badawy makes his claims are not always specifically identified as his complaints and allegations repeat throughout his materials. It is also noted that sometimes the nature of Mr. Badawy’s arguments are also relevant to the issue of Mr. Badawy’s litigation conduct, which is considered later on in these Reasons. A. Alleged Defects in Service [ 65 ] Mr. Badawy, during the September Appearance and in his documentary materials made numerous complaints about the adequacy of service of IntelliView’s Application, supporting materials, letters, and other documents. [ 66 ] Mr.

Badawy’s complaints about service are not a new phenomenon. In Nafie v Badawy , 2015 ABCA 36 , 381 DLR (4th) 208, the majority decision observed “[c]hronic complaints” by Mr. Badawy concerning defective and evaded service, and stressed “... procedural rules governing service are not a sword to be used to stall proceedings” [at para 115]. [ 67 ] Mr. Badawy’s complaints about service in this Action have no validity for two reasons. [ 68 ] First, in an order dated 13 September 2018 I deemed that service is “... good and sufficient, and validated.” On that date Mr.

Badawy, as noted earlier, acknowledged receipt of all material filed by IntelliView in support of the IntelliView Application and was given additional time to respond to IntelliView’s Application. [ 69 ] Second, any potential issues with service are now cured. As Justice Slatter observed in Bourque v Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association , 2018 ABCA 257 at para 5 , any complaints of that kind are moot once the candidate abusive litigant has had notice of the proceedings, and participated in those proceedings. Mr.

Badawy provided detailed responses to IntelliView’s Application. [ 70 ] I therefore reject that any alleged deficiencies in service have any relevance to the question of whether Mr. Badawy should be made subject to court access restrictions. B. Third Parties and Their Conduct [ 71 ] Mr. Badawy complains that third parties are engaged in this court access restriction application, and that these third parties have outstanding obligations to him, such as outstanding costs awards in his favour.

[ 72 ] He also says that any action in relation to other litigation is subject to directions from other judges, for example that court access restrictions were imposed on him in Nafie v Badawy , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket #4801 153163, and in the Court of Appeal by Martin JA in Orders dated 2 June 2014, 14 April 2015, and 21 May 2015. Mr. Badawy also indicates he is subject to other court directions from Justice Poelman, Justice Hughes, and Justice deWit.

This, as I understand him, purportedly prohibits my evaluating whether he is a potential candidate for court access restrictions since IntelliView: ... is seeking an independent retrial of issues that are pending before Case Management Judge[s?] of both Federal Court and Alberta Court of Queen Bench. [Sic, emphasis in original Badawy’s August Brief, para 16.] [ 73 ] The succinct answer to this complaint is that there is no actual overlap between any court access restriction I may impose and other orders of this and other Courts. Any decision I make will not ‘retry’ any issues in current or pending litigation.

Court access restrictions perform a ‘gatekeeper’ function, and do not affect the right of a person to engage in valid litigation or to defend themselves. In that sense Mr. Badawy’s complaint is confusing apples and oranges. These are parallel and distinct processes. C. This Court Lacks Jurisdiction or Should Not Consider Federal Court Litigation [ 74 ] A third defect identified by Mr. Badawy is that IntelliView’s Application will intrude into the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

He contends: THAT I am advised and I believe it is the truth, [IntelliView’s law firm] is bringing issues before this Court within the application that are ... pending before other Courts that the Alberta Court of Queen Bench does not have jurisdictions over these Court pursuant the Canadian court system as defined by the Canadian Department of Justice. [Sic, emphasis in original.] [ 75 ] Consistent with my prior conclusion, the result of IntelliView’s Application will have no direct effect on any proceeding or question before the Federal Courts or the Supreme Court of Canada.

That said, I am entitled to refer to litigation activities and decisions made in those forums to better appreciate Mr. Badawy’s court conduct: Thompson v International Union of Operating Engineers Local No 995 at para 25 . [ 76 ] For example, it is highly relevant to this current proceeding that in Badawy v 1038482 Alberta Ltd , 2018 FC 807 , Justice McVeigh concluded that Mr. Badawy’s action should be terminated since it had no reasonable basis, was “vexatious”, and an abuse of process. That judicial conclusion favours imposition of court access restrictions. D. IntelliView has a Malicious Intention [ 77 ] Mr.

Badawy also says IntelliView’s Application has no basis. He contends it is based on inadmissible material, “... used for the sole purpose to harass me, mischief me and abuse the judicial process. ...”. He also indicates that IntelliView has engaged in “judge shopping”, and “shopping with different justices for a better relief”. [ 78 ] I reject complaints about the intent and conduct of IntelliView. Those are irrelevant to the question before me: does Mr. Badawy’s litigation activity predict future abuse of the Courts’ processes?

I adopt the reasoning of Mandziuk J in Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque , 2018 ABQB 821 at para 67 that: ... if a judge of this Court detects one or more problem litigants, that judge is always authorized to take whatever steps are appropriate to respond to and address the identified issue(s). The surrounding context in which disruption to court function has emerged is irrelevant to solving that problem. [Emphasis in original.] See also Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 at para 31 . E. Conflicts of Interests [ 79 ] Mr.

Badawy makes numerous allegations that there are many conflicts of interest in this matter. He complains about the law firm retained by IntelliView. These issues, he says, preclude IntelliView’s Application from being heard and decided. [ 80 ] I reject this allegation. The reasons for so doing are the same as the reasons for rejecting Mr. Badawy’s complaints concerning IntelliView’s allegedly improper intentions. Even if I were to conclude that counsel for IntelliView were somehow in a conflict of interest, I still retain the authority and obligation to respond to abusive litigation.

My decision in relation to whether Mr. Badawy requires court access restrictions is an investigation of Mr. Badawy’s litigation conduct and no one else. F. Denial of Proposed Joint Hearing Prohibits IntelliView’s Application [ 81 ] Mr. Badawy also claims that Rooke ACJ’s Letter which rejected IntelliView’s proposal for a joint Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench and Federal Court hearing globally prohibits IntelliView from pursuing court access restrictions in this Court (Badawy’s August Brief, para 10): The Respondent submits that the letter of Honorable Associate Chief Justice John D.

Rooke is sufficient to dismissed the application in its entirety . ... the Respondent submits that the only reason for this application is to harass, embarrass, mischief and abuse the resources of the Respondent . ... [Sic, emphasis in original.] [ 82 ] I have previously reproduced a passage from Rooke ACJ’s Letter in which Rooke ACJ explicitly indicates that the joint

hearing proposed by counsel for IntelliView was not made out of “bad intent”, but instead with the valid and laudable objective of efficient use of court resources. Mr. Badawy not only has no basis to point to this correspondence as a reason to pre-emptively terminate IntelliView’s Application, but ignores and mischaracterizes the substance of Rooke ACJ’s reply. [ 83 ] The Federal Court responded in a similar manner. In a letter dated 29 August 2018, Justice McVeigh responded to IntelliView’s proposed joint hearing: “...

I too commend your initiative to attempt to best utilize Court and litigant resources.” [ 84 ] I conclude that Mr. Badawy’s argument was made with the intention of frustrating this Court’s evaluation of whether Mr. Badawy should be subject to court access restrictions. Mr. Badawy’s complaint is an indicium of bad litigation intent, directly relevant to the question of court access restrictions, and supports the conclusion he is an abusive litigant: Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque , 2018 ABQB 821 at paras 159-160 , 175. [ 85 ] Since I have rejected Mr.

Badawy’s complaints that I should not or cannot consider IntelliView’s Application, I now move to the primary issue of this decision: whether Mr. Badawy should be subject to court access restrictions. V. Party’s Submissions [ 86 ] The relevant law and principles that apply to IntelliView’s Application do not appear to be in dispute. The parties do, however, differ strongly on whether Mr. Badawy’s litigation conduct is or is not appropriate, and what steps the Court should take. A. Mr.

Badawy [ 87 ] Badawy’s October Brief references his litigation with IntelliView, which involves disputes over the ownership and control of numerous intellectual property interests and his ongoing matrimonial dispute. Mr. Badawy says his conduct in these matters is proper. Mr. Badawy assets that he follows court orders, and in relation to outstanding costs awards made against him said: I do not owe anyone outstanding costs, all court costs are paid and accounted for. And [IntelliView] owe me outstanding bills that are verified by Justice Hughes and directed to be in the Trial.

In addition, the Applicant [counsel for Ms. Nafie] owes me court costs ordered by Alberta Court of Appeal on January 27, 2017, that are not paid to-date and they are before Case management of Justice Poelmen. Mr. Badawy provides no materials to substantiate these statements. [ 88 ] Mr. Badawy asserts he should not be subject to court access restrictions because there is no basis for so doing. He says he is a defendant – he does not initiate litigation: AND the court shall not impose a punitive process on me, without concluding this action first.

AND in particular that I did not file any action in this Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench with exception of the Court Taxation action. [ 89 ] As for the modern Hok v Alberta approach to control abusive litigation, Mr. Badawy contends “... there is no evidence available to this Court predicts any future litigation.” [ 90 ] In his materials Mr. Badawy stresses that as a self-represented litigant, other court participants owe him special considerations, citing Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 , [2017] 1 SCR 470 and the Canadian Judicial Council Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons .

Mr. Badawy argues that his good conduct and professionalism should be acknowledged. He relies on his status as an educated man, a trained expert, and knowledgeable in law, which is a broadly recognized fact: I am familiar with the Law and Rules because I retained Counsels, Counsel-of-Record and Limited-Scope Counsels since 1992. AND I have diplomas in Law and arbitration.

I am also a member or a former member of the International Centre for Arbitration, the Arab Association of International Arbitration, the Young Arbitrators Forum (YAF) of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC); the Canadian Foundation for Administrative Justice, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Institute of Canada and Alberta Alternative Dispute Resolution Institute. ... I have a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering, and I am recognized as a scientist, researcher, business owner and former professor of Electrical and computer Engineering at the University of Calgary and I taught in International Universities.

I consult and guide commercialization and businesses using technologies, AND my arbitration and mediation activities started by getting into international markets and international disputes. It was used to resolve disputes on technical issues overseas as indicated on all my letterhead. AND All my activities within the National Self-Represented Project, sponsored by the Department of Justice, are known to the Former Chief Justice of Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Neil Wittmann, Ministers of Justice, many former and current Justices and Judges, Senior Lawyers, Benchers and Parliament Members.

These activities are supported and endorsed by different agencies of the Government of Canada and Government of Alberta. AND I am not aware that any activity violates any Law, Act or Rule. [Sic] [ 91 ] In contrast, Mr. Badawy says the chief deponent of IntelliView’s evidence, William Hews, “... has no legal experience or knowledge to allow him to review court proceedings and make sound decisions ...”. He contests the Hews’ Affidavit, asserting that it is factually inaccurate, hearsay, or unfounded, though in most instances Mr.

Badawy does not substantiate those complaints with specific evidence in support of his position. [ 92 ] Mr. Badawy submits that IntelliView is the abusive party, and, in particular, he alleges that its lawyers have engaged in blameworthy misconduct. Mr. Badawy argues he should receive costs from those lawyers and their law firm, personally, for the

September Appearance and associated materials filed in relation to possible court access restrictions. B. IntelliView [ 93 ] In its written argument, IntelliView submits that Mr. Badawy’s litigation history predicts future bad conduct. This history, IntelliView says, demonstrates that Mr. Badawy is a vexatious litigant and should be made subject to court access restrictions. [ 94 ] IntelliView’s materials document and summarize a number of actions in which Mr. Badawy is involved: 1. This Action where IntelliView disputes ownership and control of certain intellectual property.

IntelliView observes that the five new parties added in the Counterclaim filed by Mr. Badawy have been struck out from this Action. IntelliView characterizes this action as “effectively stalled” by Mr. Badawy’s activities. 2. Badawy v IntelliView Technologies Inc , Federal Court Docket T-1964-17. This action involves Mr. Badawy suing 15 parties, including the same parties as is in this Action as well as a number of others. He claims infringement of intellectual property rights, and demands “... maximum penalty of $1,000,000 per offence ...”, and other relief.

This action was struck out en toto for failing to disclose a cause of action: Badawy v 1038482 Alberta Ltd , 2018 FC 807 . Mr. Badawy has appealed ( Badawy v 1038482 Alberta Ltd , Toronto A- 245-18 (FCA)), claiming the trial judge was biased, his special rights as a self-represented person were ignored, and, strangely: The Orders of the Learned Justice are to the contrary of the Alberta Court of Queen Bench. The Notice of Appeal does not elaborate further on this last allegation. 3. Badawy v Igras , Federal Court Docket T-1289-14. Mr.

Badawy attempted to enforce intellectual property claims against his former wife’s counsel in an ongoing matrimonial dispute, as previously described. This action was struck out entirely by Justice Manson on 23 June 2017: Badawy v Igras , 2017 FC 609 . Two interlocutory appeals in this litigation were filed. One has been dismissed: Badawy v Igras (1 June 2016), Calgary A-36-15 (FCA). Mr. Badawy has also appealed the Manson J final decision. 4. Badawy v Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada , Federal Court Docket T-1965-17. Mr.

Badawy in this action sues the Federal, Alberta, and British Columbia Attorney Generals, the Canadian Bar Association, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, the Law Society of Alberta, the Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association, his former wife’s counsel and his corporation, and four named individuals. This Statement of Claim appears to assert breach of intellectual property claims which parallel the Badawy v Igras , Federal Court Docket T-1289-14 action, though now Mr. Badawy has sued a broader range of alleged wrongdoers.

The Attorney Generals, Canadian Bar Association, Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Law Society of Alberta, and Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association have been struck out as parties: Badawy v Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (16 August 2018), Calgary T-1865-17 (FC). [ 95 ] As previously indicated, Mr. Badawy is also involved in a long-standing matrimonial dispute with Ms. Nafie.

I note that the Court of Appeal in Nafie v Badawy , 2015 ABCA 36 , 381 DLR (4th) characterized this as “high conflict” litigation, and was sharply critical of the conduct of both parties. [ 96 ] IntelliView notes this Action itself is rife with collateral attacks and attempts to revisit previously decided issues: 1. confirmation of the representation of, and verification of the lawyer of record for various parties (sought six times); 2. an order restraining IntelliView’s law firm and counsel from acting against Mr.

Badawy (sought four times); 3. a preservation order for all assets and shares of IntelliView (sought three times); 4. payment for outstanding rent regarding Mr. Badawy's trailer (sought three times); 5.

summary judgment of Mr. Badawy's claims against the defendants by counterclaim (sought three times); 6. an order vacating the Order of Justice MacLeod filed 15 June 2016 (sought three times); 7. an order vacating the Order of Justice Hall filed 17 January 2017 (sought twice); and 8. an order vacating the Order of Master Robertson filed 8 November 2016 (sought twice). [ 97 ] IntelliView submits its evidence establishes Mr. Badawy has repeatedly and unsuccessfully filed appeals in Alberta and Federal Court actions. IntelliView indicates what it identifies as futile and hopeless litigation initiated by Mr.

Badawy, noting that Mr. Badawy’s actions have been criticized as without merit and abusive. [ 98 ] IntelliView states Mr. Badawy does not adhere to court orders, and, in particular, identifies an ongoing issue with unpaid cost orders. Hews’ Affidavit of Truth documents a total of 18 unpaid awards (costs and penalties) in four separate actions with a total of over $28,316.35. The Affidavit also includes documentation supporting an almost $80,000.00 property registration, which represents unpaid debts resulting from Mr.

Badawy’s matrimonial dispute. [ 99 ] IntelliView’s materials also document a matrix of unsubstantiated allegations against opposing parties, lawyers, a legal assistant, and judicial decision-makers. Mr. Badawy has said that judges are corrupt and biased. He has targeted counsel for his former wife in what IntelliView submits can only be considered abusive litigation. [ 100 ] These actions are only examples of how Mr. Badawy’s litigation misconduct is escalating. IntelliView submits this is a broader pattern. Mr.

Badawy not only repeatedly re-litigates and appeals issues, but over time new parties and issues are added. Mr. Badawy’s

abuse of court and opposing parties is spreading. [ 101 ] IntelliView submits that all of this evidence of litigation abuse warrants court access restrictions. These restrictions should be broad given Mr. Badawy’s escalating litigation misconduct in multiple forums and his persistent unmeritorious appeals. IntelliView also suggests that a precondition of any leave application should require Mr. Badawy to pay all outstanding court-ordered cost and penalties ordered in this Action and the Badawy v Intelliview Technologies Inc , Federal Court Docket T-1964-17 action. VI. Mr.

Badawy’s Abuse of Court Processes [ 102 ] IntelliView provided the Court with an extensive record of Mr. Badawy’s court-related activities. I do not propose to conduct a comprehensive review of that record in the interests of judicial economy. The summaries above provide an accurate overview. That said, in some instances in the analysis that follows, I provide representative examples to illustrate the basis for my conclusions. A. Prior Court Access Restrictions [ 103 ] The first, and, in many ways, most important factor as to whether Mr.

Badawy should be subject to court access restrictions is that Justices of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench have previously concluded that Mr. Badawy requires these steps to manage his litigation.

Where a court has previously concluded that court access restrictions are necessary to address an individual’s abuse of court processes, then that, in and of itself, is strong evidence in support of imposing further court access restrictions: Canada v Olumide , at para 37 ; Hill v Bundon , at paras 68-80 ; Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association v Bourque , 2018 ABQB 821 at 153-158. [ 104 ] In the case of Mr. Badawy those steps were imposed in his relation to his matrimonial action. The most recent order of Justice Martin globally prohibits Mr.

Badawy from filing any actions or applications in relation to those matters, except where leave is obtained from Justice Martin, or if he is unavailable, a Court of Queen’s Bench Case Management Justice: Nafie v Badawy (14 April 2015), Calgary 4801-153163 & 1401-0098-AC (Alta QB & Alta CA). [ 105 ] As I have previously indicated, Mr. Badawy acknowledges that he was previously subject to court access restrictions, but subsequently those orders were stayed. The implication is he is a good-faith, fair-dealing self-represented litigant.

Instead, the truth is the Alberta Court of Appeal continues to maintain court access restrictions are appropriate in relation to Mr. Badawy’s matrimonial dispute. [ 106 ] That fact is highly relevant to IntelliView’s Application, and strongly supports this Court taking steps under its inherent jurisdiction to address Mr. Badawy’s potential future activities in the Alberta Courts, particularly if there is evidence that Mr. Badawy’s litigation misconduct is not restricted to his dispute with his former wife. B.

Hopeless and Futile Litigation [ 107 ] A second factor relevant to possible court access restrictions is whether the candidate abusive litigant has engaged in futile litigation. Where a court concludes litigation is not merely hopeless, but was conducted in an abusive manner, then that is a strong indication that court access restrictions may be appropriate. [ 108 ] IntelliView has provided many examples of unsuccessful applications and actions by Mr. Badawy, at the trial and appeal level. But simple failure, on its own, indicates only so much about the nature of the litigant and his or her activities.

That lacuna is filled by specific observations by the Judges who have encountered Mr. Badawy personally. [ 109 ] In Badawy v 1038482 Alberta Ltd ., 2018 FC 807 , which involves many of the same parties as in this Action, Justice McVeigh concluded Mr. Badawy’s Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and struck out the action, en toto . Justice McVeigh observed at paras 12-14: ... Although the amended Statement of Claim is lengthy, the facts are insufficiently tied to the Defendants and the allegations are without material facts.

There are sweeping conclusions with no allegations of fact to support these conclusions. ... ... the rest of the content is bald allegations, speculation, and argument. At best, there are stated conclusions of wrongdoing against which a Statement of Defence could not be drafted in response. The Defendants do not, as the Plaintiff argued, have to go to their own websites to figure out what they infringed - the pleadings have to stand on their own. This pleading cannot stand alone and any attempt at answering in defence is futile.

It is plain and obvious that this claim has no reasonable chance of success. [ 110 ] Despite having concluded that Mr. Badawy’s lawsuit was hopeless, Justice McVeigh continues to conclude that Mr. Badawy’s Statement of Claim is “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious”, as it offends the rule in kisikawpimootewin ( kisikawpimootewin v Canada , 2004 FC 1426 at paras 8-9 , 134 ACWS (3d) 396; Arabi v Alberta , 2014 ABQB 295 at paras 85-86 , 589 AR 249) that the Court has no obligation to respond to gibberish.

Justice McVeigh concludes this “... pleading is so deficient in factual material that it is impossible for a defendant to answer ...” (para 22), and that Mr. Badawy’s lawsuit was therefore vexatious (para 24). [ 111 ] Justice McVeigh does not stop there. She then evaluates whether Mr. Badawy’s litigation qualifies as an abuse of court processes, offending Federal Courts Rule 221(1)(f). She concludes that not only was the Statement of Claim an abuse of the Court’s processes, but so was the manner in which Mr.

Badawy conducted himself in that proceeding (at paras 27-30): The entire amended Statement of Claim is vexatious and an abuse of the Court processes as evidenced by this hearing where the Plaintiff brought several confusing and baseless motions. First, the Plaintiff has provided no account of any specific conduct taken by the

Defendants or their employees that could be considered a foundation for the bald allegations in the amended Statement of Claim. As there is no evidentiary foundation in the amended Statement of Claim, it is an abuse of process and can be struck. Second, the evidence before the Court is that the Plaintiff is known to commence a never-ending stream of motions and letters for direction (or as occurred in this case, letters giving the Court directions). These never-ending matters are also an abuse of process. ...

Also in the materials is a 17 page printout of the procedural record from the matter in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. The Plaintiff’s matters in this Court are shockingly long, and have been heard by prothonotaries as well as judges. Any party subject to the Plaintiff’s legal pursuits must retain counsel and defend against these matters at a great cost. There is a delicate balance between accommodating self-represented litigants and an abuse of process. This litigant and this action has tipped the scale to an abuse of process ... [ 112 ] As is obvious from my review of this Action, this description of Mr.

Badawy’s litigation misconduct equally applies to how he has responded to IntelliView’s Application. [ 113 ] This is not the only occasion where the Federal Court has been critical of Mr. Badawy’s litigation tactics. In Badawy v Igras , Calgary T-1289-14 (FC), the action in which Mr. Badawy sued his former wife’s lawyer for trademark infringement, Mr. Badawy filed a Third Party Claim against the Alberta Law Society and the Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association.

This claim was struck out by Prothonotary Lafrenière (as he then was), who in so ordering concluded ( Badawy v Igras (27 November 2014), Vancouver T-1289-14 (FC)): ... by no stretch of the legal imagination can the Plaintiff’s claims against the Law Society and the [Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association] that they failed to protect the public, deceived the public and promoted malpractice be found to reasonably relate to the Defendants’ Counterclaim against the Plaintiff ... [ 114 ] Mr. Badawy appealed that order, saying he had an absolute right to sue anyone.

He contended that all the Prothonotary’s orders are void and the Prothonotary was biased. Justice Gleason of the Federal Court rejected this “completely unmeritorious” appeal ( Badawy v Igras (20 January 2015), Calgary T-1289-14 (FC)): There is no merit whatsoever in any of these submissions. ... there is not a shred of evidence to support a claim of bias. ... Mr. Badawy asserts that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias in respect to Prothonotary Lafrenière’s handling of the various motions in this action. ...

These assertions are entirely spurious and, indeed, ought never have been made. ... the Plaintiff’s allegations of bias are entirely baseless. [ 115 ] Justice Gleason also confirmed the Prothonotary’s conclusion that Mr. Badawy was attempting to frustrate the defendants by evading service. [ 116 ] But Mr. Badawy did not stop there. He appealed that result to the Federal Court of Appeal, which, in Badawy v Waldemar , 2016 FCA 162 , rejected Mr. Badawy’s allegations of bias on the part of Prothonotary Lafrenière, and further rejected Mr.

Badawy’s allegation he had experienced “torture” and “cruel and unusual punishment”: para 4. That claim “... is, to say the least, deprived of merit.” There was no jurisdiction to pursue the Third Party Claim: para 3. Mr. Badawy then sought leave to appeal this result to the Supreme Court of Canada. Leave was refused: Badawy v Law Society of Alberta (10 November 2016), Ottawa 37165 (SCC). [ 117 ] Despite that defeat, Mr. Badawy again challenged further decisions of Prothonotary Lafrenière, again, alleging bias.

These claims were rejected by Justice Roussel ( Badawy v Igras (11 January 2017), Calgary T-1289-14 (FC)), who observed Mr. Badawy’s prior allegations of bias had been conclusively rejected, and concluded “... there is nothing on the record since then that would support such a finding ...”. [ 118 ] Once more, that did not end this litigation. Mr. Badawy then wrote the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, demanding Prothonotary Lafrenière be removed from hearing the matter and “... to rescind all his orders ...” because of “... Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Development of Bias, and alleged corruption ...”.

The Chief Justice referred this demand to Prothonotary Lafrenière, pursuant to the rule in that Court that an application for a recusal is to be heard by the allegedly biased decision maker. Prothonotary Lafrenière rejected Mr. Badawy’s claim, observing that: Rather than focussing on the proceeding, the Plaintiff has chosen instead to go to war with the court. The Defendants have been put to additional expense to respond to what is clearly a frivolous, vexatious, and abusive motion. ... ( Badawy v Igras (19 January 2017), Vancouver T-1289-14 (FC) at para 27.) [ 119 ] The Prothonotary was sharply critical of Mr.

Badawy’s conduct in that proceeding (para 16): It goes without saying that repeated requests for the same relief from the Court, including requests to set aside previous orders and directions which have already been denied up to the highest level in Canada, constitutes an abuse of the Court’s processes. [ 120 ] Prothonotary Lafrenière observed that Mr. Badawy then acknowledged there was no issue of corruption and, in fact, Mr. Badawy admitted no actual bias was being alleged: para 18. Mr. Badawy had “... adduced no evidence establishing the factual basis for his allegations ...” (emphasis in original): para 23.

The application was rejected. Prothonotary Lafrenière concluded Mr. Badawy’s conduct “... is unacceptable and should not be tolerated”: at para 26. [ 121 ] As previously indicated, Mr. Badawy’s lawsuit against his former wife’s lawyer and his law firm to enforce alleged intellectual property interests had no legitimate basis: Badawy v Igras , 2017 FC 609 . Justice Manson concluded Mr. Badawy’s claims of use of the trademark in dispute was baseless and false. I concur. There is no logical legitimate legal basis for Mr. Badawy to have pursued that lawsuit.

[ 122 ] Since the Badawy v Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada , Federal Court Docket T-1965-17 action is presently underway I restrict my comments in relation to that action. It is, however, noted that a number of the defendants were struck from that lawsuit by Prothonotary Milczynski. This step is not surprising as it appears the entire allegations against those defendants were as follows: Any or all of the Defendants (Waldemar A. Igras, AND Waldemar A.

Igras Professional Corporation, AND Margaret Sobstel AND Kim Embury AND Kim Walker AND Rahima Shariff) are believed to be agents and/or affiliated with any or all of the Defendants (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, AND Solicitor General of the Province of Alberta AND Attorney General of the Province of British Columbia AND Canadian Bar Association AND Federation of Law Societies of Canada AND Law Society of Alberta AND Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association. [Emphasis in original.] [ 123 ] This clearly is another instance where the rule in kisikawpimootewin would apply.

Further, in light of the Federal Court concluding that there is no valid action against these defendants, I characterize this aspect of the Badawy v Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada action as futile and abusive. [ 124 ] Alberta Courts have also concluded Mr. Badawy’s litigation has no legitimate legal basis. In IntelliView Technologies Inc v Badawy , 2018 ABCA 163 , Justice Martin observed that where a party misses a deadline by a short delay that the Court of Appeal will usually forgive the error and permit late filing. However, Mr.

Badawy’s appeal did not warrant that courtesy, since (para 10): ... Such failings, resulting in only a short delay, will often be forgiven and the appeal restored, if on review, the appeal is found to have merit. In my respectful opinion, this appeal has none . Accordingly, the application is denied. [Emphasis added.] [ 125 ] These and other examples of Mr. Badawy’s futile litigation are a clear basis on which this Court should consider imposing court access restrictions on Mr. Badawy. He engages in persistent, unmeritorious, futile, and abusive litigation. C.

Collateral Attacks [ 126 ] Another particularly serious form of litigation abuse is a collateral attack, where a litigant attempts to re-litigate the result of a decision. [ 127 ] I accept IntelliView’s evidence that Mr. Badawy has repeatedly applied for the same relief in this Action, only to have it dismissed again. The same misconduct continued during my involvement in the Action. For example, Mr.

Badawy’s 9 October 2018 fax demands I “disqualify” IntelliView’s law firm. [ 128 ] Even more serious is that the Badawy v Intelliview Technologies Inc , Federal Court Docket T-1964-17 lawsuit and Badawy v 1038482 Alberta Ltd , Federal Court of Appeal Docket A-245-18 appeal are a collateral attack on this Action. As Martin JA noted in IntelliView Technologies Inc v Badawy , 2018 ABCA 163 at para 7 , Mr. Badawy explicitly attempted to use the Federal Court litigation to subvert IntelliView’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench action. D.

Escalating Litigation [ 129 ] A further indicium of abusive litigation is that the litigation expands. New issues are added. Old issues are continued in new litigation. New litigation targets appear. [ 130 ] This factor is obvious from Mr. Badawy’s record. His counterclaims add new parties. He returns to the same allegation, such as his repeated claims of bias and lawyer misconduct.

He tries to draw in new parties who have nothing to do with his disputes, for example, the Third Party Claim against the Law Society of Alberta and Alberta Lawyers Insurance Association struck out in Badawy v Igras (20 January 2015), Calgary T-1289-14 (FC). [ 131 ] Mr. Badawy attacks those who are aligned with his opponents. Mr.

Badawy’s Federal Court intellectual property litigation that targets his former wife’s lawyer is an obvious and striking example of that tactic. [ 132 ] Similarly, the Badawy v Igras , Federal Court Docket T-1289-14 and Badawy v Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada , T-1965-17 actions exhibit many parallels, except that the latter has an expanded cast of targeted defendants and allegations. [ 133 ] Mr. Badawy’s pattern of escalating abusive litigation provides sufficient reason for why he should be subject to court access restrictions. This pattern also predicts that Mr.

Badawy’s litigation misconduct will not be restricted to a particular dispute or party. This suggests broad-based court access restrictions are appropriate. Mr. Badawy’s next target might be anyone who crosses his path. E. Impossible or Disproportionate Remedies [ 134 ] Mr. Badawy’s litigation includes many examples of instances where he cannot obtain the relief he seeks or his seeks relief that is out of proportion given his claims. [ 135 ] For example, Mr.

Badawy sought out of proportion relief in his appeal of the Badawy v 1038482 Alberta Ltd , 2018 FC 807 decision when he asked for: A Court Order declaring to 1038482 Alberta Ltd. also known as INTELLIVIEW TECHNOLOGIES INC and its representatives Borden Ladner Gervais LLP to pay the outstanding balance of $760,801.63 in addition to pre and post interest judgment prior to any Court Submission . [Emphasis added.] [ 136 ] Unsurprisingly, Stratas JA dismissed this application, ordered costs, and directed the Registry to discard further irregular

communications in that action: Badawy v 1038482 Alberta Ltd (17 October 2018), Toronto A-245-18 (FCA). F. Persistent and Unsuccessful Appeals [137] Mr. Badawy’s litigation record further establishes a pattern of persistent and unsuccessful appeals in the Alberta and FederalCourts. He has four times continued his litigation as far as it could possibly go, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

In each case he wasdenied leave to appeal: Badawy v Nafie (20 March 2014), Ottawa 35672 (SCC); Badawy v Nafie (5 November 2015), Ottawa 36371(SCC); Badawy v Hassanein (10 November 2016), Ottawa 36961 (SCC); Badawy v Law Society of Alberta (10 November 2017),Ottawa 37165 (SCC). [138] Mr. Badawy’s pattern of persistent and unsuccessful appeals is an independent basis on which I could impose court accessrestrictions on Mr. Badawy. This misconduct also means Mr. Badawy’s court access restrictions should extend to all levels of courtbecause Mr. Badawy predictably engages in unmeritorious, abusive appeals. G.

Unsubstantiated Allegations of Wrongdoing, Impropriety, Corruption, andBias [139] Unsubstantiated allegations of lawyer and judicial misconduct and conspiracy are a further indicium of abusive litigation.IntelliView’s materials document many instances of Mr. Badawy making allegations of this kind. Mr. Badawy alleges that opposinglawyers lie under oath, engage in perjury, and breach their professional obligations. [140] The same is true for court decision makers. For example, there are Mr.

Badawy’s persistent but baseless claims thatProthonotary Lafrenière was biased, and that all Prothonotary Lafrenière’s decisions should be unwound on that basis. [141] In his IntelliView Technologies Inc v Badawy, 30 January 2017 Application for a Preservation Order, Mr. Badawy says Hall Jhas no authority “for corruption”. The Badawy v IntelliView, Statement of Claim says: ...

In particular that the Defendants proved to be connected with Justices who are biased and have been recused for corruption allegationssuch as Justice Robert Hall J. [142] When established, as it has been, this category of litigation misconduct favours imposition of court access restrictions. H. Judge Shopping [143] Judge shopping is where a litigant attempts to replace an adjudicator for a perceived tactical advantage. Arguably, Mr.Badawy’s challenges to me hearing IntelliView’s Application qualify as that. [144] However, a much more obvious example is found in Mr.

Badawy’s Federal Court Badawy v Igras, Docket T-1289-14 (FC)infringement lawsuit. In that proceeding, Prothonotary Lafrenière explicitly concluded that Mr. Badawy writing to the Chief Justice ofthe Federal Court alleging bias on his part was an instance of judge shopping. The “... repeated and unfounded allegations of bias ...”were an attempt to manipulate the court process (Badawy v Igras (19 January 2017), Vancouver T-1289-14 (FC) at para 26): ... [Mr.

Badawy] moved for an order that I recuse myself notwithstanding that he had no evidence to support his request and that the verysame allegations of bias had been repeatedly rejected by other judges on appeal. [Mr. Badawy] appears to be engaging in some “judgeshopping” or attempting to intimidate the Court into ruling in his favour. Such conduct on the part of Mr. Badawy is unacceptable andshould not be tolerated. [145] I agree. Mr. Badawy’s attempts to obtain advantage using this tactic is another basis on which to impose court accessrestrictions. I. Failure to Comply with Court Orders [146] Mr.

Badawy claims that he is a scrupulous litigant who obeys court instructions, and denies he has any outstanding unpaid costorders. As previously noted, he provides no evidence to substantiate that. [147] I reject Mr. Badawy’s denial of the documented cost awards, and instead accept IntelliView’s evidence that Mr. Badawy hasoutstanding unpaid court cost awards in multiple actions and courts. Mr. Badawy’s failure to pay these outstanding cost awards islitigation misconduct that warrants imposition of court access restrictions. That Mr. Badawy has not been honest with the Court is anaggravating factor. J.

Bad Litigation Intent [148] Lastly, I consider why Mr. Badawy has acted as he has in the Alberta and Federal Courts. [149] Rooke ACJ observed in Stout v Track, 2013 ABQB 751 at paras 78-82, 95 Alta LR (5th) 32, aff’d 2015 ABCA 10, 599 AR 98that it may not be possible to determine the exact motivation for a person to engage in bad litigation.

Nevertheless, the “... well-established principle in law that a person can be presumed to have intended the natural consequences of their acts ...” (Starr v Houlden, (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 1366, 68 DLR (4th) 641) may permit an observer to say with confidence that bad litigation canonly be explained by the abusive litigant conducting his or her action(

s) for an illegitimate, improper purpose.

[ 150 ] Mr. Badawy’s litigation, without question, reaches that threshold. [ 151 ] I can only conclude that Mr. Badawy is a vexatious litigant. There is no other possible explanation for him, without any legitimate purpose, applying for and obtaining trademarks, copyright, and corporate registrations related to his former wife’s counsel, and then attempting to enforce those spurious registrations in the Federal Court. Mr. Badawy’s litigation tactic was more than an unfair imposition on opposing parties. [ 152 ] Mr. Badawy is a litigant who uses legal processes with the intention to harass, harm, and intimidate.

On its own, this single conclusion warrants Mr. Badawy being subject to court access restrictions. Mr. Badawy’s established pattern of meritless and persistent filings and communications with the courts warrants strict and comprehensive court access restrictions beyond a simple leave application requirement. VII. Appropriate Court Access Restrictions [ 153 ] Mr. Badawy’s litigation record is troubling. He exhibits multiple indicia of abusive litigation. I have concluded Mr. Badawy is a vexatious litigant who uses the courts to harm others. There is no doubt that unless Mr.

Badawy is made subject to court access restrictions he will continue and escalate his abusive litigation activities. He will not stop unless steps are taken. [ 154 ] As previously indicated, Mr. Badawy’s past litigation misconduct predicts abusive steps against a wide and growing range of persons and institutions that plausibly will b

[…]