Rana v Baker, 2021 ABQB 352

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rana v Baker, 2021 ABQB 352 Date: 20210504 Docket: 2001 13453 Registry: Calgary Between: Salim Rana Plaintiff - and - Erin Baker Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On November 4, 2020, Salim Rana [Mr. Rana] filed with the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench a Statement of Claim naming Erin Baker [Ms. Baker] as the Defendant. Ms.

Baker is Counsel for the Defendant, Zahir Rana, Attorney for Gulzar Rana, in a second lawsuit initiated in 2015 by Mr. Rana: Rana v Rana , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 1501 02379.

[ 2 ] On April 7, 2021, Counsel for Ms. Baker by letter referred the 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. [ 3 ] The Statement of Claim commences: Defendant's acts and practices, as described herein, constitute professional misconduct, legal malpractice, unlawful discrimination or unfair professional practices, in that

(1) Defendant's practices violate numerous statutes as described in this Statement of Claim; (2) the justification for Defendant's conducts are outweighed by the gravity of the consequences to Plaintiff;

(3) Defendant's conducts are immoral, unethical, oppressive, discriminatory, unconscionable, or substantially injurious to Plaintiff: and/or; (4) the uniform conduct of Defendant's has a tendency to harm Plaintiff. ... Erin Baker ESQ was the lawyer to the Defendants, Gulzar Rana and Zahir Rana. And at all times relevant, acting alone or in concert with others, formulated, directed, controlled, conspired, substantially assisted, enabled and/or participated in the acts and practices set- forth in this Statement of Claim. ...

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has transacted business or offer professional legal service in this Province, this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Rules of Professional Conduct of the province of Alberta or the Model Code of Professional Conduct of the Federal of Law Societies of Canada on the state claims asserted herein. ... All conditions precedent to this action have been performed, satisfied or waived. [ 4 ] What follows is a

section titled “PLAINTIFF EXPERIENCE”, that alleges, among other things: 1. Ms. Baker “tendered several surreptitious documents” and “false certifications”; 2. Ms. Baker made false statements, which “... continue to harm Plaintiff in multiple aspects of his life till this moment.”, and caused “great emotional stress.”; 3. Ms. Baker’s ignored that her client lied in a counterclaim, with the intention of “... defrauding not only the Plaintiff but also the presiding judges of the trial courts.”; 4. Ms.

Baker received large amounts as legal fees in exchange for “... little or no legal service ...”; 5. “Un-account payments were made to Erin Baker until May 2017. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was informed that Erin Baker intends to take approximately another $500,000 from the sale of the Plaintiff’s mothers house since Plaintiff’s mother has no more cash.”; and 6. Ms. Baker intentionally caused Mr.

Rana to suffer “emotional distress and financial loss ... fear, humiliation, embarrassment, mental pain, suffering, inconvenience, and financial injury, including lost business profits.” [ 5 ] The Statement of Claim says these actions are “... a clear violation of Rules of Professional Conduct of the province of Alberta and the Model Code of Professional Conduct of the federation of law societies of Canada ...”, and are “... grounds for discipline ...”. Mr. Rana specifically alleges breaches of certain rules of the “Model Code”: 3.6-1, 3.2-7, 5.4-2, 5.6-1.

The remedies sought on that basis include: 1. $500,000 in general damages, 2. $100,000 in special damages, 3. $100,000 in aggravated damages, 4. $1 million in “restitutionary damages”, and 5. $10 million in “punitive and exemplary damages”. [ 6 ] After review of Mr. Rana’s Statement of Claim, I concluded in a decision reported as Rana v Baker , 2021 ABQB 277 [ Rana #1 ] that Mr. Rana’s Statement of Claim was an AVAP and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review because this Statement of Claim exhibits defects that are prima facie fatal to this Action. Mr.

Rana was asked to submit an up to ten-page Written Submission that responds to five questions: 1. How does the Statement of Claim provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response? 2. How is the Model Code relevant or a basis for the Court to award damages against Ms. Baker? 3. Why does the Court, rather than the Law Society of Alberta, have the authority to enforce the Code of Conduct ? 4. How in law do opposing counsel have a duty of care to Mr. Rana? 5. How are the damages sought by Mr. Rana not excessive or impossible? [ Rana #1 at para 24 .] [ 7 ] Mr.

Rana submitted a ten-page Written Submission on April 20, 2021. Counsel for Ms. Baker submitted a two-page Written Reply two days later. With the Written Submission and Written Reply received, CPN7 moves to its final step: to determine whether Mr.

Rana’s Statement of Claim should be struck out or not pursuant to Rule 3.68 and CPN7 paragraph 3(e). II. Analysis [ 8 ] Both parties made submissions. Ms. Baker’s Written Reply states the Rana v Baker litigation is a collateral attack on the Rana v Rana Docket 1501 02379 litigation, noting that the Statement of Claim appears to challenge the validity of orders made in the Rana v Rana . While I agree with Counsel for Ms.

Baker that this does appear to be the case, I did not pose that potential defect in Rana #1 , so I will not base my analysis below on that further prima facie illegality in the Rana v Baker Statement of Claim. A. Preliminary Issues: Inadmissible Evidence [ 9 ] Prior to evaluating Mr. Rana’s responses to the five questions there is a preliminary issue concerning his Written Submission. Much of Mr. Rana’s Written Submission expands on his allegations concerning Ms. Baker and the Rana v Rana litigation. For example, the Written Submission: 1. states Mr.

Rana’s allegations are substantiated by transcripts and correspondence (which is not identified) (para 5); 2. states Mr. Rana’s mother needs to pay for medication (para 6); 3. reports on email and in-court communication that involve a court appearance (para 8); 4. quotes court documents and says these caused a stigma for Mr. Rana (para 9); 5. quotes from a litigation transcript (para 11); 6. describes a cheque cashing business that was not properly valued (para 12); and 7. states Ms.

Baker’s misconduct is documented in unspecified correspondence and transcripts (para 14). [ 10 ] None of these statements or claims are admissible, and I have disregarded these parts of Mr. Rana’s Written Submission, because these alleged facts do not respond to the five questions directed to Mr. Rana in Rana #1 . The scope of Mr. Rana’s claims is set by the content of his Statement of Claim, and he cannot add to his allegations via the CPN7 process. Furthermore, CPN7 is a method to conduct the Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court process.

Subsection 3.68(3) of the Alberta Rules of Court states that: No evidence may be submitted on an application made on the basis ... [a commencement document or pleading discloses no reasonable claim ...] [ 11 ] I will now proceed to evaluate Mr. Rana’s responses to the five questions set in Rana #1 . B. Inadequate Pleadings [ 12 ] Rana #1 at paras 11-15 reviews the law relating to the minimum alleged factual requirements for a valid statement of claim, and identifies how Mr.

Rana’s Statement of Claim contains “bald allegations”, claims that do not provide the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.” Rana #1 requests Mr. Rana indicate how his pleadings provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendant to make a meaningful response. [ 13 ] Mr. Rana’s Written Submission is non-responsive to this question. Mr. Rana simply confirms what he alleges is true, and repeats bald allegations of wrongdoing by Ms. Baker. Ms. Baker’s Written Reply confirms the Court’s conclusion that Mr. Rana’s Statement of Claim fails to particularize Ms.

Baker’s alleged misconduct, and, furthermore, notes that Mr. Rana’s claims concerning lawyer conduct fail to recognize Ms. Baker is not Mr. Rana’s lawyer. [ 14 ] I conclude that Mr. Rana’s Statement of Claim fails to provide particulars that allow a meaningful response by the Court and Defendant, and, on that independent basis, conclude Mr. Rana’s Statement of Claim should be struck out as an abuse of the Court’s processes. C. Breach of the Model Code and Duty of Care [ 15 ] Much of Mr. Rana’s Statement of Claim alleges that Ms.

Baker has breached the Model Code of Professional Conduct [ Model Code ] published by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Mr. Rana seems to call the Model Code legislation, which it is not. The Model Code is simply that: a proposed scheme to guide lawyer conduct created by a non-governmental association with the objective of providing a possible template or starting point for provincial and territorial law societies that independently develop their own codes of conduct. Rana #1 at para 16 requested that Mr.

Rana indicate how he can conduct a valid lawsuit based on the breach of merely proposed best practices for lawyers. [ 16 ] Alternatively, Rana #1 at paras 17-20 requests Mr. Rana explain why a breach of the Law Society of Alberta Code of Conduct is a basis for litigation, given that Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench decisions have repeatedly rejected that claim as fundamentally contrary to the adversarial system applied in Canadian Courts. [ 17 ] Mr.

Rana cites MTM Commercial Trust v Statesman Riverside Quays Ltd , 2014 ABQB 16 at para 22 for the proposition that while law society codes of conduct are not binding, that Courts may nevertheless reference these sources to understand the scope of a

lawyer’s ethical obligations. Mr. Rana then continues to conclude that the “slightest nonconformity” causes prejudice and damages toothers. If damages cannot arise from violations of the Model Code, then those guides are “... a hypocritical list of words ... and hollowethical norms ...”. [18] Counsel for Ms. Baker responds that the law is clear: Ms. Baker has no duty of care to Mr. Rana. The wrongdoing Mr. Ranaalleges relates to activities where Ms. Baker is representing a party adverse in interest to Mr. Rana. [19] I reject Mr. Rana’s argument. The Model Code is not a binding authority on lawyers in Alberta.

Furthermore, both the ModelCode and the Law Society of Alberta’s actual Code of Conduct are explicit that a lawyer’s loyalty and ethical obligations center on theirclient. Mr. Rana is not Ms. Baker’s client. Ms. Baker’s potential obligations to Mr. Rana as a legal professional are, at most, secondary. [20] I also note that MTM Commercial Trust v Statesman Riverside Quays Ltd, and similar decisions such as R v Neil, 2002 SCC70, do not relate to the obligations of a lawyer to opposing parties, but to their own clients in conflict-of-interest scenarios.

That is a verydifferent kind of duty and potential harm than that alleged by Mr. Rana. [21] I adopt the reasoning in Templanza v Ford, 2018 ABQB 168 at paras 69-72, appeal abandoned 2019 ABCA 309,reinstatement denied 2019 ABCA 345, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 39034 (30 April 2020); Kumar v Korpan, 2020 SKQB 256 atparas 46-49; 9383859 Canada Ltd v Saeed, 2020 ONSC 4883; Sewak v Killips, 2021 ABQB 64 at paras 22-23; Wong v Leung, 2011ABQB 688 at paras 23-24, all of which state, in essence, that the obligation that Mr.

Rana proposes is simply inconsistent with theadversarial structure of the Canadian court apparatus. [22] Furthermore, if Mr. Rana does wish to pursue allegations of unethical lawyer conduct, then this Court has no jurisdiction overthat matter. The Legal Profession Act, RSA 2000, c L-8 gives the Law Society of Alberta sole jurisdiction to determine who maypractice law in Alberta, and discipline of lawyers who act contrary to their ethical obligations. If Mr. Rana has a valid complaint, then heshould advance that in the appropriate forum – before the Law Society of Alberta. [23] Since Mr.

Rana’s Statement of Claim appears to base his allegations on breaches of the Model Code, that means the Statementof Claim is a hopeless proceeding, and an abuse of the Court. That is a second independent basis on which I conclude the Statement ofClaim should be struck out. Moreover, even if based on the actual Code, he is in the wrong forum. D. Excessive or Impossible Remedies [24] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. In Rana #1 at paras 21-23, I requested Mr.

Rana explain how his damages claims were not excessive or impossible. Mr. Ranaclaimed $11.7 million in various forms of damages. The Statement of Claim provides no explanation for any of that, except that Mr.Rana had experienced “... pain, suffering, and mental distress ...”, and “... inconvenience, frustration and anxiety ...”. [25] Mr. Rana’s Written Submission does not explain in law how his claims are valid. He repeats bald allegations of misconductby Ms. Baker. He references several court decisions that address damages for defamation. Those are irrelevant. Mr.

Rana did not sue Ms.Baker for defamation (to the degree that some meaning can be put on Mr. Rana’s amorphous allegations). Mr. Rana instead says theamounts he seeks are justified, if not insufficient, since: ... the intangible injuries, such as distress and humiliation, that may have been caused by the defendant’s insulting behavior. Theemotional suffering by the Plaintiff ... has been immeasurable and immense as to affect his daily life. In approximation, even the amountin the Statements of Claims, if favored, will not be sufficient to quantify the suffering experienced by the Plaintiff. [26] Ms.

Baker’s Written Reply calls Mr. Rana’s damages claims “... unmoored from reality, with absolutely no chance of success....”. I agree, and further note that Mr. Rana’s Written Submission makes explicit that his entire damages claim is really a generaldamages claim. The amount demanded greatly exceeds the Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd, (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR229, 83 DLR (3d) maximum. I conclude Mr. Rana’s Statement of Claim seeks impossible and excessive damages, that are not groundedin any alleged factual foundation. That is a third independent basis on which I conclude Mr.

Rana’s Statement of Claim should be struckout. III. Conclusion [27] Mr. Rana’s Docket 2001 13453 Statement of Claim is struck out in toto on multiple bases pursuant to CPN7 para 3(

c) andRule 3.68. Mr. Rana’s action against Ms. Baker was a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court and its processes. [28] When an action, application, or claim is terminated via the CPN7 process, the usual practice of this Court is to award costs infavour of the litigant who referred the matter to the Court: e.g. Ahad v Calgary Housing Company, 2020 ABQB 450 at para 9; Phillipsv Kenney, 2020 ABQB 452 at para 9; Skrypichayko v Law Society of Alberta, 2020 ABQB 604 at para 43; Feeney v Alberta, 2020ABQB 633 at para 6. I see no reason to depart from that approach in this instance. Given the quantum of damages sought by Mr. Ranaand

Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court, I order Mr. Rana pay Ms. Baker $2,000, forthwith. [29] Counsel for Ms. Baker will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this Decision. Mr. Rana’s approval of that Order isdispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Mr. Rana may be served this Decision and the corresponding Order by email to:salimrana@icloud.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 4th day of May, 2021.

J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Salim Rana Self-represented Litigant Stuart J. Weatherill Emery Jamieson LLP for the Defendant