Selim v Greystone Residential Management Corp, 2021 ABQB 1000

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Selim v Greystone Residential Management Corp, 2021 ABQB 1000 Date: 20211214 Docket: 2103 13659 Registry: Edmonton Between: Yaser Khedr Selim Appellant - and - Greystone Residential Management Corp, and Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On September 29, 2021, Yaser Khedr Selim (Mr.

Selim) filed an Originating Application (Application) that names Greystone Residential Management Corp (Greystone) and the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) as Respondents. The entire body of the Application is: Basis for this Claim:

1. i would delay my application against respondents until Alberta human rights commission finished their investigation about lanlorad evcit me since two years ago for reason my income and court does not want address that and from my view this evction it is illegal because breach human rights act and positive + negative= negative . 2. will be two years limitation for filling my action aginest both respondents Remedy sought 3. only solution court granted this application for two years limitation . 4.

Affidavit or other evidence to be used In support of this application: 5. need see what will be happened in Alberta human right commission 6. Applicable Acts and regulations: 7. two years filling . 8. (Sic, emphasis in original.) [ 2 ] On October 13, 2021, Master Schlosser dismissed Mr. Selim’s Application. Mr.

Selim then filed an appeal on October 22, 2021.The body of the Notice of Appeal is: The respondent use Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service as a tool for discrimination under legal cover and court in the appeal process help him also and from my view the decision it is legal at all because A- it is a conflict between residential tenancy act and the human rights act

B) from logical negative+ positive= negative I cannot do anything until the human rights commission completed their investigation after the court refused and suppose to deal with this matter more efficiently but it is not happened .also defended wants to take my right way to sue discrimination me.

And landlord filing to do their obligations as in residential tenancy act and also refused to check my belongs in my apartment and rent apartment after two months of my vacated of my home it is against the act It is not fair and judgment or decision in appeal happened the judge not let me talking and court come on me because I am on aish and care about taxes from lawyers .yes it is political also because everything related with each other Also, I would like a transcript for my appeal because I cannot pay for it because I am on aish.

If court dissmed my appeal .i have a question .how can I sure lanlord for not doing his obligations following the act .i am not drg lanlord to this .he drg himself because he want everything without respect laws and not see the impact and not they are very much greedy from everything. Yaser khedr selim (Sic.) [ 3 ] On November 1, 2021, Friesen J, among other things: 1) ordered a transcript be obtained of the October 13, 2021 appearance before Master Schlosser; 2) directed Mr.

Selim to “... file an amended originating application and a supplemental affidavit on or before December 8, 2021, setting out the relief sought in the originating application which is under appeal ...”; and 3) adjourned Mr. Selim’s appeal to December 17, 2021. [ 4 ] Mr.

Selim on December 7, 2021 filed an Affidavit affirmed that date and an “Amended Originating Application” (Amended Application), whose body is: Basis for this Claim: 1. appeal for limtedtian time after court appeal said take my matter to Alberta human rights commission and not address conflict in Residential tenancy act and Alberta human right commission 2. Remedy sought 3. every thing to need to be correct and grand my application

4. Affidavit or other evidence to be used in support of this application: 5. 6. Applicable Acts and regulations: 7. Canada Constance for every one equal. 8. (Sic, emphasis in original.) [5] Counsel for the Respondent Greystone on December 10, 2021 referred Mr. Selim’s Notice of Appeal as an ApparentlyVexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 6. I have received and examinedthat referral since I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench.

CPN7 is reviewableon-line at https://www.albertacourts.ca/qb/areas-of-law/civil/practice-notes. [6] Greystone also submitted: 1) an Affidavit of Mr. Selim sworn and filed on September 29, 2021; 2) a transcript of Mr. Selim’s October 13, 2021 appearance in this matter before Master Schlosser; 3) the resulting October 13, 2021 Order of Master Schlosser; and 4) the November 1, 2021 Order of Justice Friesen. [7] I have reviewed Mr. Selim’s Notice of Appeal, the other materials provided by Counsel for Greystone, and the December 7,2021 documents.

I conclude the Notice of Appeal is an AVAP because the Notice of Appeal has elements that Courts identify ascharacteristics of hopeless and abusive proceedings. On that basis, I conclude Mr. Selim’s Notice of Appeal should be subject to a CPN7show-cause document-based review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, AR 124/2010. That means I have decided that Mr. Selimmust file a Written Submission setting out why his Notice of Appeal should not be struck out because it is significantly deficient. II.

CPN7 [8] The Court implemented CPN7 to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no chance ofsuccess, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

CPN7 is intended to provide litigants with a timely, proportionate, and cost-effectiveresponse: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2018 ABQB 874 (Unrau #1). [9] If, on initial review by the Court, an AVAP appears to have no merit, have no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusiveand vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue or issues that may be a basis to strike out theAVAP under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court. [10] The party who filed the AVAP is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide to the Court a Written Submission ofup to a total of 10 pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the AVAP is a legitimate action and should be permitted tocontinue.

The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of” the Justice who initiates the CPN7 process, and mustalso be served on the other parties to the litigation. [11] CPN7 is not to be used for “close calls”. The Court only intervenes when the defect(

s) in question are “apparent on the face ofthe pleading”, and the suspect pleadings are “clearer cases of abuse”: Unrau #1 at paras 22 and 24. [12] The Court only considers restricted forms of evidence when it conducts a CPN7 review because this process has a very narrowfocus and operates to examine a single document and its content: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2019 ABQB 347 atparas 24-48 (Ubah #2). There are exceptions to that rule.

For example, the Court may examine other documents in the same proceedingthat are related to the suspect filing (Ubah #2 at para 35), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt tolitigate an issue that has already been decided or closed (Ubah #2 at para 45). III. Analysis [13] Mr. Selim’s Notice of Appeal exhibits several issues. A.

Collateral Attacks [14] A collateral attack is a litigation step or proceeding that challenges, directly or indirectly, a prior court decision or result.Collateral attacks are generally prohibited and an abuse of process: British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v Figliola, 2011SCC 52 at para 28. Collateral attacks subvert “the orderly and functional administration of justice”: Dagenais v Canadian BroadcastingCorp, (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 835 at 871, 120 DLR (4th) 12. Any Action or Application that is identified as a collateral

attack should be terminated, immediately: Alberta v Pocklington Foods Inc, 1995 ABCA 111 at para 14. [15] Examples of prohibited collateral attacks include: 1) bringing proceedings to determine an issue that has already been determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction; 2) using previously raised grounds and issues improperly in a subsequent proceeding; 3) conducting a proceeding to circumvent the effect of a Court Order; and 4) conducting multiple proceedings with the same litigation objective. (Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at 619 (Unrau #2).) [16] As I understand Mr.

Selim’s Application, Amended Application, and Notice of Appeal, Mr. Selim alleges he was wrongfullyremoved from a property that he had leased from Greystone. He sues both his former landlord and the RTDRS tribunal that evaluatedMr. Selim’s claims. [17] Mr. Selim on December 5, 2019 appealed the decision of the RTDRS that ordered Mr. Selim removed from the rentalproperty: Selim v Greystone Residential Management Corp, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket No. 1903 24506. That appeal wasdismissed by Renke J on January 16, 2020, who ordered Mr. Selim pay $1,650 and $250 in costs. Mr.

Selim did not appeal that decision. [18] I direct Mr. Selim to explain why his Application, Amended Application and Notice of Appeal do not re-litigate the legality ofMr. Selim being evicted from the Greystone property as determined in the January 16, 2020 decision of Justice Renke in Selim vGreystone Residential Management Corp, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket No. 1903 24506. B. No Jurisdiction [19] Mr. Selim’s Application, Amended Application, and Notice of Appeal, as I understand them, argue that Mr. Selim was thesubject of illegal discrimination by Greystone and the RTDRS, and that Mr.

Selim should be permitted to pursue litigation againstGreystone and RTDRS on the basis of the Alberta Human Rights Act, RSA 2000, c A-25.5. [20] The Supreme Court of Canada has determined this and other Canadian Courts have no jurisdiction to hear human rightscomplaints: Seneca College v Bhadauria, (SCC), [1981] 2 SCR 181, 124 DLR (3d) 19, see also Hamilton v RockyView School Division No 41, 2009 ABQB 225 at paras 23-24, aff’d 2010 ABCA 217, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 34151 (18 August2011). I, therefore, direct Mr. Selim to indicate why this jurisprudence is wrong. C. Duplicate Litigation [21] Mr.

Selim’s Affidavit indicates he is currently conducting a complaint process before the Alberta Human Rights Commission(Complaint N2020/10/0193) against Greystone. As far as I can determine, that process is still underway. [22] Both the Alberta Human Rights Commission complaint and Mr. Selim’s Application, Amended Application, and Notice ofAppeal relate to the same intended subject: Mr. Selim alleges he was discriminated against by Greystone and that is a “breach” of theAlberta Human Rights Act.

Conducting duplicate proceedings is an abuse of Court processes: Unrau #2 at para 613; Piers v Proudman,2021 ABQB 253 at para 20, litigation struck out as an abuse of Court processes 2021 ABQB 349; Ellis v Szawlowski, 2021 ABQB 103 atpara 13, litigation struck out as an abuse of Court processes 2021 ABQB 164; and Joshi v Saskatchewan, 2021 ABQB 240 at paras 19,22, litigation struck out as an abuse of Court processes, 2021 ABQB 317; Ashraf v Munn, 2021 ABQB 407 at para 13, litigation struckout as an abuse of Court processes; Ashraf v Munn, 2021 ABQB 472 at paras 23-30. [23] I, therefore, direct Mr.

Selim to indicate how his Alberta Human Rights Commission Complaint and the Court of Queen’sBench of Alberta Action No. 2103 13659 are not duplicate proceedings, and, therefore, an abuse of the Court. D. Premature Proceeding [24] As I have previously indicated, Mr. Selim is apparently seeking to pursue essentially the same complaint in the AlbertaHuman Rights Commission and in this Action.

The law is clear that pursuing judicial proceedings without first exhausting alternativeregimes is an abuse of process: Al-Ghamdi v Alberta, 2017 ABQB 684 at paras 126-128, aff’d 2020 ABCA 81, leave to appeal to SCCrefused, 39389 (25 February 2021). [25] As previously indicated, this Court has no jurisdiction to directly hear human rights complaints, such as those that allegediscrimination. However, this Court may review decisions of tribunals, such as the Alberta Human Rights Commission, via judicialreview, but only after all relevant tribunal processes are exhausted. [26] I direct Mr.

Selim to indicate why his Application, Amended Application, and Notice of Appeal are not premature and abusiveproceedings, since Mr. Selim has not yet completed his Alberta Human Rights Commission processes. IV. Conclusion [27] Mr. Selim’s Notice of Appeal appears to be a suitable AVAP candidate for review pursuant to CPN7. The Court seeks Mr.

Selim respond to four questions: 1) Why is the Notice of Appeal not a prohibited collateral attack on the January 16, 2020 Selim v Greystone Residential Management Corp , Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 1903 24506 decision of Renke J? 2) Why is this Court not bound by the Seneca College v Bhadauria and Hamilton v Rocky View School Division No 41 decisions so that this Court must reject jurisdiction over litigation with a human rights subject? 3) Why are the Application, Amended Application and Notice of Appeal not abusive and prohibited duplicate litigation? 4) Why are the Application, Amended Application and Notice of Appeal not abusive and prohibited premature litigation? [ 28 ] CPN7 now advances to its second step.

This step consists entirely of written submissions; there will be no Court appearances or oral argument. The next steps are: 1) Mr. Selim has until January 10, 2022 to prepare a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages, to be filed and served, as described in para 3(

b) of CPN7. The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen”. 2) If this Court receives no Written Submission by that deadline, the Court will make its final decision on whether the Notice of Appeal should be struck out in whole or in part under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(c)). 3) If Mr. Selim provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Respondents each have until January 17, 2022 to provide a Written Reply of up to 10 pages in length (see CPN7, para 3(d)).

The Written Replies must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen”. 4) After the Court receives Mr. Selim’s Written Submission and the Defendants’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will make its final decision on whether the Notice of Appeal should be struck out in whole or in part, under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 29 ] Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2103 13659 is stayed until further notice. The December 17, 2021 hearing is cancelled. The Court will prepare and serve an Interim Order staying this action (see CPN7, para 7).

Mr. Selim’s approval of the Interim Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Mr. Selim shall be served this Memorandum of Decision and the Interim Stay Order by email to the address indicated in Justice Friesen’s November 1, 2021 Order: yaserfadhy2001@yahoo.com. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 14 th day of December, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Shaun D. Wetmore McCuaig Desrochers LLP for the Respondent Greystone Residential Management Corp