Joshi v Saskatchewan, 2021 ABQB 317

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Joshi v Saskatchewan, 2021 ABQB 317 Date: 20210421 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. All these Defendants indicated that Mr. Joshi’s claims have no legal basis, and are re-litigation of previous decided 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 the 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 the “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 and allegations include that:

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, where Mr. Joshi was alleged to have 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 concluded in a decision reported as Joshi v Saskatchewan , 2021 ABQB 240 [ Joshi #1 ] that both the Docket 2001 14406 and 2101 03049 lawsuits are AVAPs and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review because these two Statements of Claim exhibit defects that are prima facie fatal to these Actions. Mr. Joshi was asked to submit an up to ten-page Written Submission that responds to five 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 jurisdiction over 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? [ Joshi #1 at para 47 .] [ 14 ] Mr. Joshi submitted two Written Submissions, each dated April 5, 2021. Each relates to one of the two lawsuits.

I will refer to the Docket 2001 14406 Written Submission as the “Joshi Government Submission”, and the Docket 2101 03049 Written Submission as the “Joshi CIBC Submission”. Written Replies were received from Saskatchewan (April 9, 2021), Canada (April 9, 2021), Ontario (April 12, 2021), and CIBC (April 12, 2021). II CPN7 Analysis [ 15 ] Since Mr. Joshi’s two lawsuits exhibit certain common defects I have, in certain instances, addressed both Actions together. A. Collateral Attack, Re-Litigation, and Duplicate Proceedings

[16] In Joshi #1 at paras 18-23 I indicated that it appears Mr. Joshi was attempting to relitigate previous legal proceedings, oroutcomes, which is a prohibited collateral attack. Mr. Joshi was also advancing the same CERB and CRB complaint in the Alberta Courtof Queen’s Bench and Provincial Court of Alberta. 1. Joshi Action #1 [17] The Joshi Government Submission rejects that Joshi Action #1 is a collateral attack: ... because it is not seeking to reverse or challenge a previous ruling. It is simply seeking remedy for the infringement of his Charterrights ... Mr.

Joshi then concludes that the principle of collateral attack cannot apply because, if it did, then the prohibition against collateralattack breaches Charter s 52 as it is inconsistent with an unidentified component, or components, of the Charter. The Joshi GovernmentSubmission states the CERB and CRB complaint has been settled, so that is not abusive litigation. [18] Ontario argues the distinction made by Mr. Joshi is spurious, since an action is abusive and a collateral attack both when itdirectly or indirectly challenges prior litigation. At best, Mr.

Joshi framing the Joshi Action #1 filings as Charter litigation still leavesMr. Joshi indirectly attacking prior findings of fact and law made in earlier proceedings. Saskatchewan concludes that the only way aCharter remedy might flow from a court decision is if that decision was wrong: Yashcheshen v Canada (Attorney General), 2020SKQB 185 at paras 62-68, 75-76. [19] Canada takes the position that not only do the Joshi Action #1 filings collaterally attack prior litigation, but Myers J in Joshi vHer Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 2444 at paras 6-10 indicated Mr.

Joshi’s Charter-based allegations werealready abusively litigated on three separate occasions in Ontario courts: Joshi v Canada (Attorney General) (24 November 2017) (unreported decision of Tzimas J) (Ont Sup Ct J), aff’d (17 April 2018),Toronto C64820 (Ont CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38154 (13 December 2018) Joshi v Canada (Attorney General) (12 July 2018), Brampton CV-17-4800 (Ont Sup Ct

J) Joshi v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 2444. [20] Mr. Joshi’s current Joshi Action #1 filings are therefore four-fold collateral attacks and re-litigation. Canada stresses that thefact Mr. Joshi has settled his CERB and CRB dispute does not make Mr. Joshi’s duplicate litigation activity any less abusive. [21] I accept and agree with the arguments and conclusions of the Joshi Action #1 Defendants. Beyond that, Mr. Joshi’s claim thathe is not seeking to challenge previous and settled litigation is simply and obviously false. For example, paragraph 53(

i) of his Affidavitsays: “Quash my unlawful theft conviction”. Most of the Joshi Action #1 allegations are openly grounded on him disagreeing with aprior litigation outcome. Mr. Joshi saying otherwise simply does not change the facts. [22] This is a first independent basis on which I conclude the Joshi Action #1 should be struck out. Mr. Joshi’s filings are apersistent attempt by Mr.

Joshi to re-litigate settled issues, the latest in a series of repeated collateral attacks on prior litigation outcomes.Joshi Action #1 continues as an attempt by Mr Joshi to expand his pattern of serious abuse of this and other courts’ processes. 2. Joshi Action #2 [23] In the Joshi CIBC Submission, Mr. Joshi points to Canada Labour Code, RSC 1985, c L-2, s 246(1) [CLC] that states: No civil remedy of an employee against his employer is suspended or affected by [Canada Labour Code ss 240-245].

He says that means his lawsuit against CIBC is therefore legally authorized. [24] CIBC’s Written Reply traces through Mr. Joshi’s attempts to conduct parallel CLC and Canadian Human Rights Commission[CHRC] complaints about being dismissed from his job with CIBC in 2010, and the subsequent Federal Courts litigation. Mr.

Joshi thenattempted to relitigate these issues in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, where his filings were dismissed via show-cause proceedingsas frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and that result was confirmed on appeal: Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank ofCommerce (17 January 2017), CV-17-2396 (Ont Sup Ct J), aff’d 2018 ONCA 537, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38209 (13 December2018).

CIBC takes the position that issue estoppel blocks any further re-litigation of this issue: Wilson v Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd,2016 SCC 29; Rasanen v Rosemount Instruments Ltd (1994), (ON CA), 17 OR (3d) 267 (Ont CA). [25] The CLC provision identified by Mr. Joshi is irrelevant. Mr. Joshi voluntarily initiated and pursued his complaints againstCIBC before the CHRC: Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2014 FC 722 at paras 9-11 [Joshi v CIBC #1]; Joshi vCanadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2015 FCA 105 at para 5, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 36440 (24 September 2021) [Joshi vCIBC #2].

When the CHRC rejected Mr. Joshi’s complaints, Mr. Joshi then attempted to conduct proceedings under the CLC. However,CLC Adjudicator concluded he had no jurisdiction. That was then confirmed by the Federal Court (Joshi v CIBC #1) and subsequentlyconfirmed on appeal (Joshi v CIBC #2). Furthermore, the Federal Court of Appeal in Joshi v CIBC #2 at para 19 confirmed that Mr.Joshi’s CHRC and CLC complaints are the same. [26] What Mr. Joshi is now doing is a collateral attack on the CHRC decision.

Furthermore, the law in Canada is that human rightstribunals and the remedies they offer displace possible civil claims based of allegations of, for example, discrimination: Seneca College vBhadauria, (SCC), [1981] 2 SCR 181 at 195, 124 DLR (3d) 19. [27] I therefore conclude that Mr. Joshi has not rebutted my finding in Joshi #1 that the Joshi Action #2 is a collateral attack onMr. Joshi’s activities before the CHRC and the Federal Courts. Instead, Joshi Action #2 is the latest attempted step in Mr. Joshi’s

persistent and repeated abuse of this and other Canadian courts. This is a first independent basis on which I strike out the Joshi Action #2Statement of Claim. B. Defendant Immunity and Court Jurisdiction [28] Counsel for Saskatchewan and Ontario identified legislation that prohibits Alberta Courts from taking jurisdiction of lawsuitswhere Saskatchewan and Ontario are the Defendants: Proceedings Against the Crown Act, RSS 1978, c P-27; Crown Liability andProceedings Act, 2019, SO 2019, c 7, Sch 17. In Joshi #1 at paras 24-27, I asked Mr.

Joshi to explain why he had a basis to advancelitigation against those governments in Alberta courts, particularly in light of the recent Fitter International Inc v British Columbia,2021 ABCA 54 decision that endorsed this statement from Labrador (Attorney General) v Uashaunnuat (Innu of Uashat and ofMani-Utenam), 2020 SCC 4 at para 275: “... The Crown of one province cannot be sued in another province’s court ...”. [29] The Joshi Government Submission responds: ...

Saskatchewan and Ontario are not immune to litigation in Alberta due to the fact that s. 24(1) of the Charter gives a court of competentjurisdiction authority to provide Charter remedy that is appropriate and just in the circumstances. ... citing Mills v the Queen, (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 863, 29 DLR (4th) 161. [30] Counsel for Saskatchewan observed that framing litigation in a Charter context does not grant Alberta courts jurisdiction overSaskatchewan, citing Medvid v Alberta (Health and Wellness), 2012 SKCA 49 at para 30.

Ontario argues that Charter s 6 mobilityrights do not permit forum shopping of litigation, and, furthermore, that the legislation that empowers the Alberta Court of Queen’sBench, the Court of Queen's Bench Act, RSA 2000, c C-31, makes clear that the authority of this Court is only in relation to trial ofsubjects and matters located in Alberta. Canada argues that any litigation relating to CERB and CRB payments falls into the exclusivejurisdiction of the Federal Courts. [31] Once again, I agree with the Defendants.

This is a second independent basis on which I strike out the Joshi Action #1 filings.This litigation is hopeless and an abuse of process since Joshi Action #1 pursues remedies before a court that has no jurisdiction. Putanother way, Mr. Joshi could attempt to sue Saskatchewan and Ontario, but he may only do so in those Provinces, respectively, wherethe Courts there have legislation that grants the Courts jurisdiction to hear proceedings against the Crown. C.

Inadequate Pleadings [32] In Joshi #1 at paras 28-37, I reviewed the law as to pleadings, and how documents that start a legal dispute must provide abasis for the opposing parties to make a meaningful response. This is particularly true for allegations of Charter breaches, since theSupreme Court of Canada in Mackay v Manitoba, (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 357, 61 DLR (4th) 485, instructed that a factualfoundation, or an alleged factual foundation, is an absolute requirement for pleadings that seek potential Charter relief. [33] As is apparent from the review of Mr. Joshi’s Joshi Action #1 pleadings, Mr.

Joshi has provided little to no basis for hisclaims. While the Joshi Action #2 Statement of Claim provides more narrative detail, it also makes astonishing claims, such as that CIBCenacted law that apparently trumped Parliament’s authority. I therefore requested that Mr. Joshi explain how his pleadings provide abasis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response. 1. Joshi Action #1 [34] Mr. Joshi’s Written Submissions take different approaches. The Joshi Government Submissions first says there are no facts indispute, Mr. Joshi has provided material details “... keeping it simple and concise ...”.

He says the problem is with the Court and its lackof comprehension: “... despite keeping it simple the Alberta court has not grasped the issues fully. ...”. The Joshi GovernmentSubmissions say the Court should instead focus on “the big picture”, and: What matters most with respect to Charter infringements is the material facts as was the case in Khadr where the Government of Canadaofficials interviewed him in Guantanamo Bay prison and passed the information to American officials. Nothing else mattered.

Likewise,in Henry the Crown’s failure to disclose all the evidence in its possession was the crucial fact. [Emphasis in original.] [35] Mr. Joshi concludes: Mr. Joshi’s case is exceptionally unique and complex since it involves repeated Charter violations going back 34 years. It is not simple tocover all the Charter infringements spanning over 34 years in great detail without making it too complicated. It already is toocomplicated. [36] Saskatchewan notes Mr. Joshi still has provided no link to itself, whatsoever.

Ontario and Canada stresses pleadings that seekCharter relief require a factual foundation, and that is absent from the Joshi Action #1 filings. [37] I agree with the Defendants submissions, and, further, conclude Mr. Joshi has not meaningfully responded to Joshi #1. Saying“it’s complicated” is not an answer to inadequate pleadings. This is a third separate and independent basis on which I strike out JoshiAction #1 as an abuse of the Court’s processes. 2.

Joshi Action #2 [38] As for Joshi Action #2, the Joshi CIBC Submissions takes a startling position: Alberta Court cannot possibly understand the complex nature of the CIBC’s fraud and its perversion of justice based on the pleadings

alone. It must let the claim to proceed so that justice is done. [ 39 ] CIBC’s Written Reply states Mr. Joshi’s Statement of Claim rests on bald allegations, and that Mr. Joshi has now expanded his claims to allege CIBC committed criminal offenses. CIBC says, and I agree, that claim is simply further evidence the Joshi Action #2 is an abusive proceeding. [ 40 ] I conclude that if Mr. Joshi cannot explain his lawsuit to the Court (let alone the Defendant CIBC), because of its “complex nature”, then that means there is no substance to Mr. Joshi’s allegations.

This is a second independent basis on which I strike out the Joshi Action #2 Statement of Claim as an abusive proceeding. D. Excessive or Impossible Remedies [ 41 ] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at 619 [ Unrau #2 ] at paras 620-625 . Both Mr. Joshi’s lawsuits claim large sums. In Joshi #1 at paras 38-43 , I asked Mr. Joshi explain how his remedies were not excessive or impossible. [ 42 ] The Joshi CIBC Submissions are largely non-responsive to this point, though Mr.

Joshi does state he based his claims on projected lost earnings and punitive damages for “especially egregious” CIBC misconduct. The Joshi Government Submissions says Mr. Joshi “... is not particularly interested in the magnitude of financial compensation but wants it to be known and understood that his Charter rights were grossly violated.” The Joshi Government Submissions then points to the settlement payment of $10.5 million to Omar Khadr as a comparator. [ 43 ] I conclude Mr. Joshi has not rebutted that he has sought excessive and impossible remedies in Joshi Action #1 and #2 .

This is a further independent basis on which I conclude Mr. Joshi is engaged in abusive litigation. Further, I agree with Nielsen ACJ that a litigant who sues for very large sums, then disclaims actually seeking those amounts, has engaged in litigation for an improper purpose, and abused the services of the Court: Miller v Edmonton (City) , 2020 ABQB 784 at para 22 ; Sewak v Killips , 2021 ABQB 147 at para 25 . That is a further negative aspect of Mr. Joshi’s litigation conduct. E.

Forum Shopping [ 44 ] “Forum shopping” is when an abusive litigant switches between jurisdictions to evade litigant and litigation management steps. Forum shopping is a very serious form of litigation misconduct that demonstrates bad intent: Unrau #2 at paras 679-685, 695-697 . In Joshi #1 at paras 44-46 , I observed that Mr. Joshi had apparently exhausted his litigation options in the Federal, Saskatchewan, and Ontario courts. Now Mr. Joshi re-litigates the same matters in Alberta. I asked Mr.

Joshi to explain how he is not a “forum shopper”. [ 45 ] Half of the Joshi Government Submissions is in response to this question. What Mr. Joshi writes is difficult to understand. He says he cannot be expected to travel to jurisdictions where his legal rights have been allegedly ignored. Mr. Joshi has relocated to Calgary for non-legal reasons, such as low housing prices and taxes, and to be near his children. “[N]ow that Mr.

Joshi resides in Calgary it is logical to seek Charter remedy in Alberta.” [ 46 ] The Joshi Government Submissions state courts in other jurisdictions “failed miserably” to address him being: ... a victim of systemic racism and/or flagrant bias towards the legal profession. ... It’s akin to how the Toronto man Alek Minassain used a rental van to mow down innocent people killing 10 and injuring 16, to satisfy his hatred for women. [ 47 ] Mr.

Joshi’s submissions continue to quote statements by several politicians concerning the issue of racism and the over- representation of minorities in the criminal justice system. The Joshi Government Submissions states that “... confirms Mr. Joshi’s malicious prosecution and wrongful conviction in May 1987.” Mr. Joshi then argues that his litigation should proceed, particularly since lawsuits by “white Covidiots” and “[t]he privileged white” are not classified as abusive.

The Joshi Government Submissions draw that same parallel with litigation that challenged the legality of federal carbon taxes, “... despite the fact there was no prospect for success based on simple common sense.” I note that in the recent References re Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act , 2021 SCC 11 , the presence of three extensive dissents suggests Mr. Joshi’s characterization of that issue as “common sense” is not quite so clear cut. [ 48 ] I conclude Mr.

Joshi is a forum shopper who has expanded his history of persistent, abusive, hopeless litigation in other jurisdictions by re-litigating in the Alberta courts the same allegations made and rejected by the Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Federal courts. Joshi Action #1 and #2 are not even the first examples of Mr. Joshi forum shopping. He previously forum shopped his Federal Court litigation into Ontario provincial courts. [ 49 ] Mr. Joshi’s reasons for being in Alberta are irrelevant. Mr. Joshi is quite frank, he disagrees with his court and tribunal outcomes in other jurisdictions, so now he will try Alberta.

I find as fact that Mr. Joshi is forum shopping his disputes, and he does so to evade the negative results he has encountered to date. This is another further independent basis on which I conclude the Joshi Action #1 and #2 actions are an abuse of the Court, and should be struck out on that basis. I also conclude that Mr. Joshi is an abusive litigant who has sought to actively evade management of his abusive litigation, particularly the Ontario court’s use of Rule 2.1 “show cause” procedures, by shifting his most recent lawsuits to this province. IV.

Conclusion [ 50 ] The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2001 14406 and 2101 03049 Actions are struck out entirely on multiple independent bases. These are abusive, hopeless proceedings. Mr. Joshi’s pattern of litigation misconduct cannot be managed by steps such as case management. Mr. Joshi simply files new, duplicative lawsuits, over and over, in jurisdiction after jurisdiction.

[ 51 ] When an action is terminated via the CPN7 process, the usual practice of this Court is to award costs in favour of the litigant who referred the matter to the Court: e.g. Ahad v Calgary Housing Company , 2020 ABQB 450 at para 9 ; Phillips v Kenney , 2020 ABQB 452 at para 9 ; Skrypichayko v Law Society of Alberta , 2020 ABQB 604 at para 43 ; Feeney v Alberta , 2020 ABQB 633 at para 6 . I see no reason to depart from that approach in this instance. Mr. Joshi sought million in damages. Given that quantum, and

Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court, I order Mr. Joshi pay costs, forthwith, as follows: Joshi Action #1 : $2,000 to Saskatchewan, $2,000 to Ontario, and $2,000 to Canada Joshi Action #2 : $2,000 to CIBC. [ 52 ] Counsel for the Saskatchewan shall prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision in relation to Joshi Action #1 . Counsel for CIBC shall prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision in relation to Joshi Action #2 . Mr. Joshi’s approval of these Orders is not required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision and the corresponding Orders may be served on Mr.

Joshi via email to: ntjoshi@gmail.com. [ 53 ] In its March 5, 2021 letter that referred the Joshi Action #1 filings for CPN7 review, Counsel for Saskatchewan also stated Mr. Joshi’s litigation warrants court access restrictions as were imposed in Callow v West Vancouver Teacher’s Association (Local School District Number 45) , 2019 ABQB 353 pursuant CPN7 paragraph 7.

In its Written Reply Saskatchewan repeated “... that the Court should consider access restrictions against him.” [ 54 ] Subsequent to Callow v West Vancouver Teacher’s Association (Local School District Number 45) , Slatter JA in Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 largely rejected this Court’s inherent jurisdiction to engage in prospective litigation management. Further, at para 85(d), Slatter JA “read down” the explicit authority of this Court to on its own motion initiate Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 , ss 23-23.1 court access restriction proceedings.

Slatter JA instead instructed: Vexatious litigant applications should primarily be litigant driven.

While the court has a residual ability to trigger a vexatious litigant application on its own motion, the court should only initiate the process where the litigants have failed to do so after invitation and the overall interests of the administration of justice are engaged, or there is another justification for doing so. [ 55 ] Since I am authorized by Jonsson v Lymer to invite litigants to initiate a Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1 court access restriction process, and, in light of Saskatchewan’s indication that such a step is appropriate, I request that Saskatchewan file a Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1 application in relation to Mr.

Joshi. Saskatchewan and the other Defendants in these matters shall indicate by May 24, 2021 whether or not one or more of the Defendants will take that step. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 21 st day of April, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Navin Joshi Self-represented litigant 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