Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2021 ABQB 208

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2021 ABQB 208 Date: 20210318 Docket: 1801 17978 Registry: Calgary Between: Chinedu Gideon Ubah Applicant / Plaintiff - and - Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Steve Laut and Jim Yukes Respondents / Defendants _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] Chinedu Gideon Ubah [Mr. Ubah] is an abusive litigant active in the Alberta Courts and the Federal Court of Canada. Mr.

Ubah was made subject to indefinite court access restrictions in all three Alberta Courts in a decision reported as Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 692 at para 183 [ Ubah #4 ]. [ 2 ] Mr. Ubah subsequently sought leave to appeal his being subject to the Ubah #4 litigation gatekeeping order. Leave was denied for all issues, and Ubah #4 was confirmed, except for two specific and limited questions ( Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2020 ABCA 209 [ Ubah ABCA #1 ]): 1.

Whether the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench had the jurisdiction to impose a filing disclosure requirement concerning Mr.

Ubah’s record of litigation misconduct when Mr. Ubah operated outside Alberta. In Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2021 ABCA 5 at paras 5 , 8 [ Ubah ABCA #3 ], the Court concluded no such authority existed, and ordered parts of an ancillary clause removed from the Ubah #4 order. 2. Whether a reasonable apprehension of bias resulted from the Court obtaining information concerning Mr. Ubah’s litigation activities. This second ground of appeal was rejected. [ 3 ] Mr. Ubah did not appeal Ubah ABCA #1 or Ubah ABCA #3 . As a consequence, Mr.

Ubah remains subject to the court access restrictions imposed by Ubah #4 that require Mr. Ubah obtain leave to file or continue litigation in the three Alberta Courts. [ 4 ] Since Ubah #4 , Mr. Ubah has repeatedly abused this Court and its processes. One of his more common targets has been the Ubah #4 court access restrictions. Mr. Ubah has alleged that this litigation gatekeeping decision is defective or illegal in a number of ways. Mr.

Ubah unsuccessfully sought leave to challenge the Ubah #4 court access restrictions in Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2020 ABQB 516 and Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2020 ABQB 547 [ Ubah #7 ]. In each of these instances Mr. Ubah made the same complaints, which is one of many examples that illustrate Mr. Ubah’s pattern of re-litigating settled issues. [ 5 ] On March 16, 2021, Mr. Ubah, as a self-represented litigant [SRL], submitted to the Court a letter and Affidavit sworn by himself on March 15, 2021, to obtain leave to file an “Application” that, among other things, seeks: 1.

Declaration of whether or not the [ Ubah #4 ] decision/order is contrary to law for failing to give Notice to the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General of Alberta pursuant to the judicature Act. 2. Declaration of whether or not the [ Ubah #4 ] decision/order is contrary to law in light of the Court Appeals decisions cited in the Appeal Court decision in this matter 3. A re-hearing or review or an Order setting aside the decision/order of [ Ubah #4 ] as the evidence relied upon by the chamber Judge has been recounted and contradicted by deponent. 4.

A re-hearing or review or setting aside decision/order of [ Ubah #4 ] due to missing submission by the Plaintiff in the court file/record [Sic.] [ 6 ] Mr. Ubah seeks an “in person” hearing of his candidate Application. Mr. Ubah in earlier correspondence also called this an “Appeal”, and Mr. Ubah purported to unilaterally

schedule that “Appeal” to be heard on March 18, 2021. [ 7 ] Mr. Ubah’s March 15, 2021 documents generally conforms to the Ubah #4 , para 183 (5) criteria for a valid leave to file application, and so I will treat them as such. II.

Test for Leave to File [ 8 ] “... [A] person subject to court access control is presumed to engage in illegitimate litigation unless the Court is satisfied otherwise. ...”: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at para 19 , aff’d 2018 ABCA 111 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019). [ 9 ] Permission to initiate litigation or continue stayed litigation both test the merit of court activities on the same standard.

A person subject to court access restrictions must: 1. establish reasonable grounds for the litigation, and 2. depose fully and completely as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding. ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 27; VWW v Wasylyshen , 2013 ABQB 327 at para 42 , aff’d 2014 ABCA 121 ). [ 10 ] This threshold, which must be established on a balance of probabilities, is not a high one, and in many ways parallels the test for

summary judgment: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 26.

The person subject to court access leave restrictions is expected to put his or her “best foot forward” to establish the basis to initiate or continue an action: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 26-27. [ 11 ] The documents necessary to seek leave are an affidavit to provide evidence, and, in the case of a new action, application, or other litigation step, a copy of the proposed filing: e.g., Re Moore , 2018 ABQB 261 ; Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 . [ 12 ] Leave may be granted in part: Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 ; Belway v Lalande-Weber , 2017 ABCA 108 at para 10 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37708 (21 December 2017). [ 13 ] Leave submissions to initiate or continue litigation may also be rejected: 1. where the materials do not satisfy the criteria set out in the court access restriction order ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38267 (31 January 2019); Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38266 (31 January 2019)); 2. if the submissions exhibit indicia of abusive litigation ( ET v Calgary Catholic School District No 1 , 2017 ABCA 349 at para 12 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38081 (8 November 2018); Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Trinity Place Foundation of Alberta v Templanza , 2019 ABQB

45 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ; Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP , 2019 ABQB 396 ); 3. where the abusive litigant refuses to provide the proposed filing ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ); 4. where the abusive litigant provides false information ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ); and 5. where the abusive litigant fails to provide materials that are required to evaluate the proposed litigation step, such as an appeal transcript ( Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ). III. Mr. Ubah’s Proposed Filing [ 14 ] I reject Mr.

Ubah’s proposed filing on multiple independent bases. A. Collateral Attack [ 15 ] 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 , 2011 SCC 52 at para 28 . [ 16 ] 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.] [ 17 ] Mr.

Ubah is explicit that what he seeks is to challenge the legality of the court access restrictions imposed in Ubah #4 . This Court has no jurisdiction to re-hear that issue. Ubah ABCA #1 rejected, at a threshold level, Mr. Ubah’s arguments that he should not be subject to the Ubah #4 court access restrictions. The result is this Court has no jurisdiction on these points, either. [ 18 ] This is the first independent basis on which I reject Mr. Ubah’s leave to file application as an abuse of the Court. Mr.

Ubah is attempting to relitigate and challenge issues that were decided by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and then those results and their reasoning were confirmed by the Alberta Court of Appeal. Mr. Ubah’s proposed filing is a prohibited collateral attack on both Ubah #4 and Ubah ABCA #1 . B. No Valid Grounds for Rehearing or Setting Aside [ 19 ] Mr. Ubah identifies two purported deficiencies that allegedly warrant unwinding the court access restrictions against Mr. Ubah. 1. Missing June 24/25 2019 Document [ 20 ] Mr.

Ubah says that certain materials he submitted on June 24, 2019 and that were received on June 25, 2019 are not on the Court record. He argues: “It is unclear what exactly was before ACJ John Rooke if any and why they are not recorded in the court files.” [ 21 ] First, if there is a lack of clarity, it cannot be Mr. Ubah who is confused. Mr. Ubah created those materials. Mr. Ubah knows their contents. Second, Ubah #4 indicates exactly what I received since Mr. Ubah’s June 24/25, 2019 documents are detailed at Ubah #4 at paras 45, 136-138 . Third, it was up to Mr. Ubah to file those items.

If he did not do so, then that is no basis for Mr. Ubah to now complain at this point, one and a half years after the Ubah #4 decision, that the Ubah #4 proceeding was somehow defective because of Mr. Ubah’s own neglect. [ 22 ] Fourth, Ubah #4 makes it very clear I received and reviewed the purportedly “missing” item. So it is not as though Mr. Ubah’s submissions were ignored. Instead, Ubah #4 summarizes and disposes of Mr. Ubah’s arguments and allegations advanced in the June 24/25, 2019 document. In fact, the June 24/25, 2019 materials were completely irrelevant to the question of whether Mr.

Ubah should or should not be subject to court access restrictions, since the June 24/25, 2019 document was simply nothing more than yet another attempted collateral attack, in this case on Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 347 . As I have previously observed, Mr. Ubah relentlessly challenges unfavourable outcomes. Here is another further example of Mr. Ubah’s standard litigation practices. [ 23 ] Mr. Ubah’s complaint about the June 24/25, 2019 documents is a completely irrelevant, wasteful distraction. His advancing this complaint is further evidence of Mr. Ubah’s pattern that Mr.

Ubah habitually and methodically abuses Alberta courts. 2. Conflicting Affidavit Evidence [ 24 ] The other alleged defect is that Ubah #4 relied on purportedly incorrect affidavit evidence concerning Mr. Ubah’s activities in

the Federal Court of Canada. Mr. Ubah says that a second affidavit filed by the same deponent, Charlotte Harper, in Federal Court proceedings to have Mr. Ubah subject to a Federal Courts Act , RSC 1985, c F-7 , s 40 court access restriction order ( Canada (Attorney General) v Ubah , Edmonton T-1570-20 (FC)) contradicts the Harper affidavit evidence relied upon in Ubah #4 . [ 25 ] These are the relevant passages from Ms. Harper’s two Affidavits: June 11, 2019 Affidavit - Ubah #4 : I was instructed to consult the Department of Justice’s files for the purpose of this affidavit.

As a result of my review I found: • The Edmonton Office has opened 8 files that involve Mr. Ubah; • Mr. Ubah has brought these 8 applications in Federal Court on behalf of various family members or others, and they are not in relation to Mr. Ubah personally; and • Mr. Ubah has either named himself as the Applicant or has listed himself for address for service on these 8 applications. June 7, 2021 Affidavit - Canada (Attorney General) v Ubah , Edmonton T-1570-20 (FC) I have reviewed the Federal Court online Court Index and the Department of Justice Canada’s electronic file system. ...

As a result of my review I found as of September 28, 2020: • The Edmonton Office responded to 15 Federal Court files that involve or appear to involve Mr. Ubah; • For 14 of these files, Mr. Ubah has been named as an Applicant, has requested to be added as a party, or his name or mailing address (79 Erin Grove SE) is listed as the address for service; and • The remaining file is a lawsuit initiated by Mr. Ubah against Her Majesty the Queen (T-765-20). [ 26 ] Mr.

Ubah in his March 15, 2021 Affidavit says: ... there is now another version of Affidavit of Charlotte Harper that have recounted and contradicted her prevent affidavit evidence given and relied upon by ACJ John D. Rooke in his decision and order of September 6, 2019. [Sic.] Mr. Ubah continues to indicate Ms. Harper has committed the “serious offense” of giving contradictory evidence, contrary to Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46 , s 136(1). [ 27 ] Mr. Ubah’s complaint is absurd. Comparing the 2019 and 2021 Affidavits, it is plain what Ms. Harper has indicated in the 2021 Affidavit is that, post-2019, Mr.

Ubah’s litigation activity at the Federal Court of Canada has practically doubled. There is no contradiction. Instead, Ms. Harper’s Affidavits are evidence that supports Mr. Ubah has continued his pattern of aggressive, frequent litigation in a forum where Mr. Ubah is not subject to litigation gatekeeping steps. [ 28 ] Mr. Ubah’s failure to provide valid grounds for a rehearing or setting aside is a second independent basis on which I reject filing of Mr. Ubah’s proposed “Application”. C. Mr.

Ubah is an Abusive Vexatious Litigant Whose Continued Pattern of Litigation Misconduct Warrants Court Access Restrictions [ 29 ] In the alternative, even if I were to conclude: 1. that this Court somehow retained jurisdiction to re-litigate the court access restrictions imposed in Ubah #4 , and 2. that, somehow, Mr. Ubah’s complaints that the 2019 Ubah #4 proceedings were improper, had a faulty record, or were based on false evidence, were valid, I would still reject any change to Mr. Ubah’s court access restrictions. [ 30 ] In 2019, I found as fact that Mr.

Ubah would abuse the Alberta courts unless he was subject to court access gatekeeping. I was right. From 2019, through to the present, Mr. Ubah has not altered his pattern of repeated, abusive, baseless, and often absurd allegations and complaints. Mr. Ubah has inflicted, without any basis or justification, yet further expense on the opposing parties in this litigation, parties who Mr. Ubah has falsely persecuted through all three Alberta Courts. Mr. Ubah also has continued to waste this Court’s time and resources. [ 31 ] In Ubah #7 at para 43 , I concluded “Mr.

Ubah does not take “no” for an answer.” That pattern remains unchanged. In Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 [ Lymer ], the Alberta Court of Appeal instructed that the criteria for court access restrictions are persistent, unmanageable, repeated, abusive litigation misconduct. Mr. Ubah satisfied all those criteria in 2019, as confirmed by Ubah ABCA #1 , and, today, Mr. Ubah’s now expanded litigation track record is even worse. [ 32 ] I, therefore, conclude, as a third independent ground, that Mr. Ubah’s challenge to the Ubah #4 court access restrictions should be rejected because, in fact and law, Mr.

Ubah is exactly the kind of person whose litigation activities must be subject to court access gatekeeping. There is no reasonable basis for the proposed “Application”. Mr. Ubah’s current leave to file application simply proves that conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt.

IV. Conclusion [ 33 ] Leave to file Mr. Ubah’s “Application” is denied. I am aware that Mr. Ubah will likely disagree with this result. Mindful of my obligations to SRLs such as Mr. Ubah, pursuant to Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 , to provide relevant information, I note that Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010, Rule 14.5(4) prohibits appeal of this decision to the Alberta Court of Appeal, see also Re Gauthier , 2018 ABCA 14 . [ 34 ] The Court did not request the Respondents participate and make submissions in relation to Mr. Ubah’s leave to file application pursuant to Ubah #4 , para 183 (5)(iv).

Their participation was unnecessary. However, I draw to the attention of the Respondents that Lymer at para 70 indicates that security for costs is a valid tool to restrain inappropriate litigation by abusive litigants, and that security for costs is a potential mechanism to address Mr. Ubah attempting to further continue this action that was (or should have been) closed by Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2020 ABQB 576 . Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 18 th day of March, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Chinedu Gideon Ubah Self-Represented Litigant