Joshi v Saskatchewan, 2021 ABQB 240

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Joshi v Saskatchewan, 2021 ABQB 240 Date: 20210329 Dockets: 2001 14406, 2101 03049 Registry: Calgary Between: Docket 2001 14406 Navin Joshi Plaintiff - and - Government of Saskatchewan, City of Saskatoon, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, and Attorney General of Canada Defendants And between: Docket 2101 03049 Navin Joshi Plaintiff - and - Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Defendant

_______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On March 5, 2021, Counsel for the Government of Saskatchewan [Saskatchewan], by letter, referred to the Court an “Originating Application” and “Affidavit Supplemental” (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 14406) filed by Navin Joshi [Mr.

Joshi] in November 2020 that names Saskatchewan, the City of Saskatoon, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, and the Attorney General of Canada as Defendants [ Joshi Action #1 ]. Saskatchewan sought to have the Court evaluate the Joshi Action #1 Statement of Claim as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 6.

I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. [ 2 ] On March 10, 2021, Counsel for the Government of Ontario [Ontario], by letter, also referred the Joshi Action #1 filings pursuant to CPN7. Subsequently, on March 11, 2021, Counsel for the Government of Canada [Canada] made the same referral. These Defendants indicate that Mr. Joshi’s claims have no legal basis, and are re-litigation of previous matters. Canada also included a January 20, 2021 civil claim filed by Mr.

Joshi in the Provincial Court of Alberta that Canada indicates is a duplicate proceeding to part of Joshi Action #1 . [ 3 ] Next, on March 19, 2021, I received a letter from Counsel for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce [CIBC] referring for CPN7 review a Statement of Claim (Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 03049) filed by Mr. Joshi on March 4, 2021 that named CIBC as the Defendant [ Joshi Action #2 ]. Counsel for CIBC also provided four decisions where Mr.

Joshi had previously sued CIBC: • Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 2015 FCA 92 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36439 (24 September 2015), • Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 2015 FCA 105 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36440 (24 September 2015), • Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (17 January 2017), CV-17-2396 (Ont Sup Ct J), and • Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 2018 ONCA 537 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38209 (13 December 2018). Counsel for CIBC states the Joshi Action #2 is re-litigation of issues decided in these four earlier decisions. A.

Joshi Action #1 [ 4 ] Mr. Joshi initiated Joshi Action #1 in an unorthodox manner with two documents: an “Originating Application”, and an “Affidavit Supplemental”. Mr. Joshi filed the “Originating Application” on November 25, 2020. That document’s entire body reads: Basis for this claim: 1. Charter infringements Remedy sought: 2. Charter remedy Affidavit or other evidence to be used in support of this application: 3. Affidavit of Navin Joshi Applicable Acts or Regulations:

Section 1, 11(d), 11(g), 15 (1), 24 (1), 52(1) of the Constitution. [Emphasis in original.] [ 5 ] Subsequently, on November 30, 2020, Mr. Joshi filed the ten page “Affidavit Supplemental” that Mr. Joshi affirmed on that date. This document is not an Affidavit that deposes to facts, but instead is a hybrid document that combines aspects of a written legal argument, and claims typically found in the body of a statement of claim. I have, nevertheless, read “Originating Application” and “Affidavit Supplemental” together in an attempt to evaluate the substance of Joshi Action #1 . [ 6 ] As I understand it, Mr. Joshi’s complaints include:

1. Mr. Joshi has been denied legal rights because of his “skin colour, race and/or status.” 2. Mr. Joshi was incorrectly convicted in 1987-1988 for theft in a dispute over payment for VCR repairs. Mr. Joshi illegally seized a customer’s television remote control. 3. A civil action in 1996-1997 was wrongly decided against Mr. Joshi, and costs were improperly awarded against Mr. Joshi. 4. Mr. Joshi in 2000 was denied disability insurance by the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench on the basis of a forged document. 5. One or more civil actions heard in Ontario courts were improper and Mr.

Joshi was denied a Charter remedy. 6. The Ontario Court of Appeal in 2007 illegally accepted payment of a filing fee and then did not extend the deadline for Mr. Joshi’s appeal. 7. “In 2008-2011, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada infringed my right to the equal protection of the law when he failed to consider new evidence for wrongful conviction review showing that the fallacy of pregnancy upon which I was convicted was patently flaws and unlawful. In 2008, a British female soldier serving in Afghanistan unknowingly gave birth which even her superiors and peers didn’t know about.

Yet, I was convicted of theft for no knowing that a strange woman I had ever seen before was pregnant.” [Sic.] 8. Mr. Joshi was unjustly fired from a job with CIBC. In subsequent 2011-2012 tribunal proceedings “... CIBC’s perversion of the Canadian Human Rights Act ...” and “... expunging s.242(2) of the Canadian Labour Code ...” [italics in original] denied proper investigation of Mr. Joshi being discriminated against on the basis of disability. These illegal results were then improperly confirmed by the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal in 2015. 9.

In 2013-2017, Ontario Courts unlawfully dismissed claims by Mr. Joshi, denied him extensions of time, gave opposing parties preferred treatment, ordered costs against Mr. Joshi, and acted illegally by releasing a court decision while Mr.

Joshi was “... going for an extensive vacation overseas ...”. 10. “In 2018 and 2019 the Superior Court Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario denied me Charter remedy when they unlawfully applied Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of civil Procedure to defeat my constitutional right to obtain Charter remedy because it was distasteful since it exposed systemic racism, bias and elitism in the administration of justice and law enforcement.” [Sic, emphasis in original.] 11. Several banks defrauded Mr.

Joshi in 2020, but Saskatoon Police and “... the federal agency regulating the banks ...” did not assist with this theft. 12. Canada has unlawfully denied Mr. Joshi COVID-19 CERB and CRB benefits. [ 7 ] The Joshi Action #1 “Affidavit Supplemental” concludes: Not once in 34 years has our institutions treated me with respect and dignity except when the opposing parties were self-represented as well, in which case my evidence was considered and given weight while the deceptive or invalid claims of the opposing parties were dismissed or rejected. In all other cases it became a rubber stamp for the privileged. ...

The failure of our justice system to treat me with respect and dignity has caused me and my family immense harm. The Charter infringements subjected my family of six to unnecessary hardship, financial distress mental anguish, and robbed us of happiness, fulfillment and enjoyment of life. [Sic.] [ 8 ] The Joshi Action #1 “Affidavit Supplemental” seeks Charter s 24(1) remedies, including: 1. quashing Mr.

Joshi’s criminal conviction; 2. prosecution of several individuals and banks “for their crimes”; 3. $14,000 in unpaid CERB and CRB benefits, and more funds going forward; 4. $1.49 million in “restitution ... of disability insurance proceeds”; 5. $1.58 million in “restitution ... for loss of employment income”; 6. $400,000 in “restitution” for “consumer rights violations”; 7. $120,000 in “restitution ... for workplace discrimination”; 8. $75,000 in “restitution ... for loss of investments”; 9. $50,000 in court and litigation-related costs; 10. “$30 million compensation from the City of Saskatoon”; 11. “$40 million compensation from the Government of Saskatchewan”;

12. “$60 million compensation from the Province of Ontario”; and 13. “$45 million compensation from the Government of Canada”. B. Joshi Action #2 [ 9 ] The second Statement of Claim by Mr. Joshi was filed on March 4, 2021. Mr. Joshi states the Defendant, CIBC, employed him from 2006-2010, but Mr. Joshi’s employment was then wrongfully terminated. Mr. Joshi attributes his being dismissed to the failure of CIBC to provide Mr. Joshi with “mandatory training”, so that Mr.

Joshi was unable to complete tasks with 93% accuracy. [ 10 ] What follows next are, difficult to understand, claims involving the Canada Labour Code and Canadian Human Rights Act : ...

The Plaintiff relied on the Canada Labour Code to protect him against the unjust dismissal but it failed when the Defendant misused its power, influence and money to pervert the course of justice by replacing s.242(2) of the Canada Labour Code with its own self-made law. ...To expunge s.242(2) the Defendant held the Plaintiff hostage requiring him to agree to its perversion of the Canadian Human Rights Act with the intent of using it as a weapon to obstruct the adjudicator from hearing the unjust dismissal complaint on falsehood that he did not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint as it was not referred back by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. ...

In response the adjudicator appointed to uphold the Canada Labour Code preferred to comply with CIBC’s perversion of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Hence justice was perverted and defeated by the Defendant's unlawful and egregious conduct. ... The Defendants should have respected the law and taken responsibility for its action or inaction.

Instead it chose to defeat justice by any means necessary thus denying the Plaintiff the protection of the Canada Labour Code. [ 11 ] The Joshi Action #2 Statement of Claim concludes that if CIBC had acted properly then that would have resulted in “... one- year salary, bonus, stock options and good employment reference.” Instead, Mr.

Joshi alleges CIBC: ...willfully, knowingly, and intentionally prolonged the Plaintiff’s misery by thwarting his future prospects of ever becoming employed again at age of 59 without any job references and recent employment experience. [ 12 ] The Joshi Action #2 Statement of Claim seeks as remedies: 1. $1,583,175 for lost employment from April 10, 2010 to April 10, 2020, 2. $1.25 million in “general, aggravated and punitive damages”, and 3. interest and costs. C. Conclusion [ 13 ] After review of Mr.

Joshi’s filings, I conclude that both the Docket 2001 14406 and 2101 03049 lawsuits are AVAPs and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. II. CPN7 [ 14 ] CPN7 is a practice implemented by the Court to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

This practice is intended to provide a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response to the litigants: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 [ Unrau #1 ]. [ 15 ] If, on initial review by the Court, the pleading appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue(

s) which may be a basis to apply Rule 3.68 and strikes out the pleading. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide the Court with a Written Submission of up to a total of ten pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the pleading is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue. The Written Submission must be served on the other parties to the litigation. [ 16 ] CPN7 is not for “close calls”, but instead the Court intervenes by this mechanism when the defect(

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

For example, the Court may examine other documents in the same proceeding that are related to the suspect filing ( Ubah #2 at para 35 ), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt to litigate an issue that has already been decided or closed ( Ubah #2 at para 45 ). III CPN7 Analysis [ 17 ] Mr. Joshi’s two lawsuits exhibit a number of apparent defects. In certain instances, both lawsuits exhibit the same issues, so I will, on some points, address Mr. Joshi’s two actions together.

A. Collateral Attack, Re-Litigation, and Duplicate Proceedings [18] 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 collateralattack should be terminated, immediately: Alberta v Pocklington Foods Inc, 1995 ABCA 111 at para 14. [19] 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].] [20] Most claims in the Joshi Action #1 “Affidavit Supplemental” relate directly to a decision of a court or tribunal, and allege thatdecision was improper, incorrect, or unlawful.

For example, paragraph 36 of the Joshi Action #1 “Affidavit Supplemental” reads: In 2015, the Federal Court of Appeal denied me justice and the equal protection of the law when it considered CIBC's indictable offencesof perverting the Canadian Human Rights Act to defeat the Canada Labour Code an "agreement". It robbed me of $1,255,450 inemployment income, bonus, pension, and stock options from April 2010 to April 2020. This claim appears to reject the conclusions of the Federal Court of Appeal, says the outcome of that proceeding was wrong, and thatinstead Mr.

Joshi should receive a large sum in damages. [21] Similarly, the complaints advanced in the Joshi Action #2 Statement of Claim appear to have the same underlying legalsubject as the appeals rejected in Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2015 FCA 92, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36439(24 September 2015) and Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2015 FCA 105, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36440 (24September 2015). [22] The Joshi v Attorney General of Canada, Calgary 2190100182 (Alta Prov Ct) and Joshi Action #1 “Affidavit, Supplemental”both appear to seek the same or overlapping remedies: Joshi v Attorney General of Canada, Calgary 2190100182 (Alta Prov Ct): ... payment of $13,000 in CERB and CRB payments that the Plaintiff was entitled under the law and its continuing payment until theexpiry of CRB or when it COVID-19 is no longer a threat. [Sic.] Joshi Action #1 “Affidavit Supplemental”: $14,000 COVID-19 CERB and CRB benefits ...

Injunction for $1,000 CRB payment effective January 6, 2021 [23] I therefore request Mr. Joshi indicate how his current lawsuits are not collateral attacks, re-litigation, and/or duplicates ofproceedings in other courts. B.

Defendant Immunity and Court Jurisdiction [24] In their letters, Counsel for Saskatchewan and Ontario identify legislation that prohibits Alberta Courts from takingjurisdiction of lawsuits where Saskatchewan and Ontario are the Defendants: Proceedings Against the Crown Act, RSS 1978, c P-27;Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, SO 2019, c 7, Sch 17. [25] Recently, in Fitter International Inc v British Columbia, 2021 ABCA 54 at para 39, the Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that alitigant could not sue British Columbia in an Alberta court, citing this statement by Brown and Rowe JJ in Newfoundland and Labrador(Attorney General) v Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashat and of Mani-Utenam), 2020 SCC 4 at paras 274-275: The constitutional principle of Crown immunity means that the Crown can be sued only with its permission. ...

All provincial legislatureshave introduced legislation allowing the Crown to be sued, but only in their own courts ... It is this simple. The Crown of one provincecannot be sued in another province’s court ... [Citations omitted, emphasis added.] [26] Canada states in its letter that Mr.

Joshi has no jurisdiction to challenge his CERB and CRB benefits (or lack thereof) becausethe Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction over judicial review of federal tribunals, pursuant to Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, ss18-18.1. [27] Given this legislation, and the ruling in Fitter International Inc v British Columbia, I request that Mr. Joshi explain how thisCourt has any jurisdiction in relation to Saskatchewan and Ontario, or jurisdiction to hear Mr. Joshi’s complaint concerning the allegedunconstitutional denial of CERB and CRB benefits.

C. Inadequate Pleadings [28] An application or statement of claim sets the issues to which the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of the caseit must meet: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18 at para 87. Proper pleadings require more than simply bare assertions, or “baldallegations” of wrongdoing: GH v Alcock, 2013 ABCA 24 at para 58; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA227 at paras 16-20.

Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate to theresponding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health andWelfare) at para 19. The Supreme Court of Canada in Mackay v Manitoba, (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 357, 61 DLR (4th)485, instructed that a factual foundation, or an alleged factual foundation, is an absolute requirement for pleadings that seek potentialCharter relief. [29] Mr.

Joshi cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Defendants to “fill in theblanks”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 20. A lack of specificity is not merely a technical defect, but goes tothe core of the claim: GH v Alcock at para 58, citing AL v Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services) (2006), (ON CA), 274 DLR (4th) 431, 218 OAC 150 (Ont CA).

Inadequate pleadings abuse the court’s process because a respondentcannot defend against unclear and non-specific claims and the court cannot control the proceedings, identify the proposed argument, ormake findings on the relevant facts: Unrau #2 at para 629. [30] The Joshi Action #1 “Originating Application” provides no information at all about the alleged wrongdoing by theDefendants. While the “Affidavit Supplemental” provides more information, it too appears to lack necessary information. For example,while Mr.

Joshi seeks relief via Charter, s 24(1), he does not indicate what Charter sections he alleges were breached and in whichscenarios. As such, the Joshi Action #1 does not seem to comply with the mandatory requirements set in Mackay v Manitoba. [31] The central premise of Joshi Action #1 appears to be allegations of racial discrimination, but that is a bald allegation. The onlyinstance where Mr. Joshi identifies alleged discrimination is in relation to his VCR repair and television remote control theft criminalconviction. Even then, Mr.

Joshi does not indicate how racial bias manifested and/or was allegedly implicated. [32] Many other descriptions of alleged wrongdoing are, to be generous, incomplete.

For example, paragraph 21 of the “AffidavitSupplemental” reads: In November 2000, I was denied justice and equal protection of the law when the London Small Claims Court allowed the admission offictitious hearsay expert report served just two days before the trial contrary to the Rules of Small Claims Court, which the court reliedupon exclusively while omitting my indisputable insurance loss. [Sic.] What is the style of cause and docket for this lawsuit? Who was the expert? Why was the expert report “fictitious” and “hearsay”? Whywas Mr. Joshi’s claim “indisputable”?

What “Rules of Small Claims Court” were breached? By whom? Which of the Defendants isliable for this alleged wrongdoing, and how? What damages resulted from this alleged wrongdoing? Is this allegation linked to the$1.498 million “disability insurance proceeds” sought? [33] Other parts of the “Affidavit Supplemental” are entirely cryptic.

For example, what does paragraph 29 mean: In 2008-2011, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada infringed my right to the equal protection of the law when hefailed to consider new evidence for wrongful conviction review showing that the fallacy of pregnancy upon which I was convicted waspatently flaws and unlawful. In 2008, a British female soldier serving in Afghanistan unknowingly gave birth which even her superiorsand peers didn’t know about. Yet, I was convicted of theft for no knowing that a strange woman I had ever seen before was pregnant.

This claim appears to be an example of abusive pleadings that Snider J in kisikawpimootewin v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 at para 9 saidmeant the defendant “... is left both embarrassed and unable to defend itself.” [34] Joshi Action #1 does not appear to direct any complaints against Saskatchewan, but nevertheless seeks $40 million in“compensation”. Compensation for what? [35] The Joshi Action #2 Statement of Claim provides considerably more narrative detail, and indicates a potential basis for Mr.Joshi to sue CIBC in a breach of employment contract action. However, many of Mr.

Joshi’s other allegations do not appear to providethe Court and Defendant a basis to make a meaningful response. How did CIBC “... pervert justice ... by replacing s.242(2) of the CanadaLabour Code with its own self-made law.” How could CIBC enact law? How could CIBC’s authority trump that of Parliament? [36] Extraordinary claims such as these require a specific explanation.

As Manderscheid J observed in VWW v Wasylyshen, 2013ABQB 327 at para 52, leave refused 2014 ABCA 121, “[a]n extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.” Similarly, Gill J in Arabiv Alberta, 2014 ABQB 295 at paras 74-78 observed that an action cannot rely on allegations that are absurd, highly implausible, orhyperbole, and that is particularly true when no detail is offered on the nature of an underlying misconduct and its operation. [37] Mr. Joshi is therefore asked to explain how his Joshi Action #1 and #2 filings provide a basis for a meaningful response bythe Court and Defendants. D.

Excessive or Impossible Remedies [38] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. Both Mr. Joshi’s lawsuits claim large sums. As previously indicated, the basis for those is unclear. Why do the Joshi Action #1Defendants owe Mr. Joshi tens of millions of dollars in “compensation”? Compensation for what? [39] Joshi Action #1 seeks $1,583,175 in “restitution ... for loss of employment income”.

Joshi Action #2 seeks the same amountas “financial compensation for the loss of employment income from April 10, 2010 to April 10, 2020 due to wrongful dismissal.” How

can Mr. Joshi seek apparently duplicate recovery from both CIBC and the government Defendants for what appears to be the samealleged wrongdoing? How would the Joshi Action #1 Defendants ever become liable for the breach of employment contract alleged inJoshi Action #2? They did not employ Mr. Joshi. Other damages claims do not appear to be linked to the alleged wrongdoing. Mr. Joshiseeks $75,000 in “restitution ... for loss of investments.” Those investments, or opportunities for investments, are not identified. [40] Joshi Action #1 demands this Court undo a criminal conviction.

It is trite law that Canadian courts have no jurisdiction tochange the verdict in a criminal proceeding once relevant appeal periods have expired. The conviction in question appears to haveoccurred 1987. Mr. Joshi’s appeal was then dismissed in 1988. If Mr. Joshi wants to challenge his conviction, then his remedy does notappear to be this Court, but instead a ministerial review, pursuant to Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 696(1). [41] Criminal prosecutions are the sole domain of the Crown.

How does this Court have the authority to order “[p]rosecution ofWayne and Shirley Derkatch, CIBC and TD Canada Trust for their crimes”? [42] The Joshi Action #2 Statement of Claim seeks “$1.25 million in general, aggravated, and punitive damages”. Presuming that asubstantial amount of that claims relates to general “pain and suffering” damages, then that claim exceeds the maximum amount ofgeneral damages that may be claimed for pain and suffering that was set in Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, (SCC),[1978] 2 SCR 229, 83 DLR (3d) 452 at $100,000.

After inflation, the Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd general damages cap is nowabout $365,000. That amount was for a young adult whose injuries led to near total disability. Mr. Joshi’s claims appear to exceed thatcap, but Mr. Joshi also does not allege the kinds of injury that would merit a large general damages claim. Mr. Joshi simply says hisinability to work has caused “misery”. [43] This is a fourth apparent issue with Mr. Joshi’s litigation. Mr. Joshi should identify why the remedies he has sought are notexcessive or impossible. E.

Forum Shopping [44] “Forum shopping” is when an abusive litigant switches between jurisdictions to evade litigant and litigation managementsteps. Forum shopping is a very serious form of litigation misconduct that demonstrates bad intent: Unrau #2 at paras 679-685, 695-697. [45] The Joshi Action #1 and #2 actions appear to duplicate litigation Mr. Joshi has conducted in Saskatchewan, Ontario, and theFederal Courts. Mr. Joshi appears to have exhausted his litigation alternatives in those jurisdictions, even seeking leave to appeal to theSupreme Court of Canada on four occasions where Mr. Joshi was suing CIBC.

As I have previously indicated, Mr. Joshi has nowcommenced proceedings in Alberta that relate to the same issues. [46] Mr. Joshi therefore appears to an abusive litigant who is evading management and the conclusion of his litigation byswitching to a different jurisdiction, Alberta, and then re-litigating the same issues again. Mr.

Joshi is requested to explain why hiscurrent Joshi Action #1 and #2 litigation in Alberta is not forum shopping, and why he is not an abusive litigant who is attempting tocontinue, without a legal basis, lawsuits that he initiated and that were rejected by courts in other Canadian jurisdictions. IV. Conclusion [47] Mr. Joshi’s lawsuit filings appear to be suitable candidates for review per CPN7. The Court therefore seeks a response fromMr. Joshi on these questions: 1. How are the lawsuit filings not a collateral attack, re-litigation, and/or duplicate litigation? 2.

Why are the Defendants Saskatchewan and Ontario not immune to litigation in Alberta, and why does this Court have jurisdictionover Mr. Joshi’s CERB and CRB claims? 3. How do the lawsuit filings provide a basis for a meaningful response by the Court and Defendants? 4. How are the remedies sought in the Statements of Claim not excessive and/or impossible? 5. Why is Mr. Joshi not an abusive “forum shopper” litigant? [48] Mr. Joshi’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 14406, 2101 03049 Actions are stayed. CPN7 now advances to itssecond step. 1. Mr.

Joshi has until 14 days after this decision is filed to file and serve a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages,pursuant to CPN7, para 3(b). The Written Submission should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice Rooke”. 2. If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline, the Court will proceed to render its final decision on whetherthe Docket 2001 14406 and 2101 03049 court filings should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Mr.

Joshi provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Defendants have seven days to each make a Written Reply of upto a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)). The Written Replies should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate ChiefJustice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Mr. Joshi’s Written Submission, and the Defendants’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will render its finaldecision on whether the Docket 2001 14406 and 2101 03049 court filings should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68(CPN7, para 3(e)).

[ 49 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order staying this action. Mr. Joshi’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision and the Interim Stay Order may be served on Mr. Joshi via email to: ntjoshi@gmail.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 28 th day of March, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Justin Stevenson Civil Law Saskatchewan Ministry of Justice and Attorney General for the Defendant Government of Saskatchewan Hera Evans Constitutional Law Branch Civil Law Division Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General for the Defendant Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Jeffery Z. H. Tran Prairie Region National Litigation Sector Department of Justice for the Defendant Attorney General of Canada Geoffrey H. Adair Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP for the Defendant Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce