Rana v Baker, 2021 ABQB 571

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rana v Baker, 2021 ABQB 571 Date: 20210721 Docket: 2101 06413 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 May 18, 2021, 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 June 16, 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. The Defendant takes the position that the May 18, 2021 Statement of Claim is vexatious, a collateral attack on a previous and now terminated lawsuit, and makes allegations that are hopeless. I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. [ 3 ] The earlier lawsuit in question was an action filed on November 4, 2020 by Mr. Rana that named Ms. Baker as the Defendant, alleged a range of misconduct, and sought $11.7 million in damages [First Action].

The First Action was also the subject of a CPN7 process. Mr. Rana was asked to rebut five prima facie fatal defects in his litigation: Rana v Baker , 2021 ABQB 277 at para 24 [ Rana #1 ]. He did not do so. The First Action was struck out in toto , and Mr. Rana was ordered to pay $2,000 in costs: Rana v Baker , 2021 ABQB 352 at paras 27-28 [ Rana #2 ]. [ 4 ] Briefly, Mr. Rana styles his current lawsuit [Second Action] as a defamation lawsuit. He says he has been defamed on many bases, including: 1. Ms. Baker allegedly had lied to the Court. 2. Ms.

Baker made misrepresentations about an email from the Alberta Court of Appeal Case Management Officer, “thereby defrauding not only the Plaintiff but also the court. ...”. 3. “Numerous third parties” have accused Mr. Rana of “ill-intent”. Mr. Rana concludes that Ms. Baker therefore “uttered such statements somewhere other than in a court proceeding”. One such individual is “Lou, a hairdresser of the wife of Ms. Baker’s client ...”. 4. “Ms.

Baker has continuously claimed that she has nothing to do with the herein Plaintiff, however, the transcript of hearings suggest that she maliciously misrepresented the latter thereby creating a stigma to the person of the Plaintiff.” [ 5 ] Mr. Rana also makes various statements complaining about the conduct of the Rana v Rana action, and Ms. Baker’s activities in that proceeding. [ 6 ] Mr. Rana says Ms.

Baker’s “malicious” defamatory statements: 1. were intended to “sever” his ties to his family, “alienating him from his family and relatives”; 2. created “... such stigma casted ... unto the Plaintiff’s person hindered future earnings ...”, though no examples of that result are indicated, simply that “some business partners ... negating in engagement in business ventures”; and 3. caused “... immense emotional and mental distress on the part of the Plaintiff ... emotional distress, and sleepless nights ...”. [ 7 ] Mr.

Rana on this basis seeks: 1. $250,000 in damages for defamation, 2. $500,000 for lost business ventures, 3. $360,000 in general damages, 4. $200,000 in special damages due to loss of profit in Mr. Rana’s “business ventures” and “the costs spent in the prosecution of this action”, 5. $100,000 in punitive damages because Ms. Baker breached “... the natural obligation of an advocate of law to affirm the utmost morals in her profession. ...”. [ 8 ] After review of Mr.

Rana’s Second Action Statement of Claim, I concluded, in a decision reported as Rana v Baker , 2021 ABQB 995 [ Rana #3 ], that the Second Statement of Claim is an AVAP, and should be subject to a CPN7 “show cause” document-based review. Mr. Rana was asked to prepare a Written Submission of up to ten pages that responded to four questions: 1. How does the Second Action Statement of Claim provide an adequate basis for the Court and Defendants to make a meaningful response? 2. How does the Second Action Statement of Claim satisfy the pleadings requirements of Rule 13.7? 3.

How is the Second Action Statement of Claim not a collateral attack on the First Action that was struck out as an abuse of the Court in Rana #2 ? 4. How are the damages sought by Mr. Rana not excessive? [ Rana #3 at para 29 .] [ 9 ] On July 6, 2021, my office received a four-page letter from Mr. Rana, a ten-page untitled document that appears to be Mr. Rana’s Written Submission, and then 134 pages of additional materials, that Mr. Rana has organized as a series of “Tabs”, numbered 1 to 26. A Written Response was subsequently received from counsel for Ms. Baker on July 12, 2021. II. Preliminary Finding: Mr.

Rana’s CPN7 Response is a Knowing and Intentional Abuse of the Court

[ 10 ] As is apparent from my introduction to this Decision, Mr. Rana did not follow the Court’s instruction in Rana #3 at paras 29- 30 . Instead, Mr. Rana submitted materials far in excess of the ten-page Written Submission permitted under CPN7. The four-page letter received from Mr. Rana with his other materials makes it very plain Mr. Rana is aware that his submissions should ought to be limited to ten pages. However, Mr.

Rana rejected that limit. “... [A] 10-page written submission ... is not sufficient for me to enlighten the Court of the factual occurrence and truth behind this case ...”. [ 11 ] What follows in that letter is a lengthy series of allegations against persons Mr. Rana has sued, their counsel, and that this Court’s previous findings were wrong. Mr. Rana says his intention is to take his litigation to the Supreme Court of Canada, unless he gets the result he wants from lower courts. Mr. Rana concludes his letter with this paragraph: I am not a member of the "Law Society of Alberta" and do not wish to be a member.

Once I have made sure this matter is fully addressed and resolved, I intend to go into the sunset and hope not to have to make any new appearances in Alberta courts. My letter is in layman's terms as I am a "layperson" but, an honest person. I believe that the law has pre-defined rules and regulations. However, let's not forget that these rules are based on HONESTY AND FAIRNESS. Lawyers should not cross through the opposite meaning of these rules and regulations, that is why there is a standard in the practice of law and should not use it as a device to mislead, secure undue advantage, and suppress the truth.

It seems they think that they can outsmart the Courts, the truth will always shed light even in the darkest part of this world. Once in a while a warrior comes along who will continue to battle the protection of his mother. [ 12 ] Mr. Rana’s 26 “Tabs” of materials are a mixture of documents that include documents filed in other actions, correspondence, and transcript excerpts. These are apparently “the factual occurrence and truth behind this case” that Mr. Rana describes in his letter. None of these items is admissible because Rule 3.68(

c) excludes evidence on the merit of a proceeding from a Rule 3.68 procedure. Mr. Rana knows this very well. In Rana #2 , at para 10 , I wrote: 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 ...] [ 13 ] I find as fact that Mr. Rana is perfectly well aware of the ten-page CPN7 Written Submission limit, and that he intentionally chose to ignore that. I also find as fact that Mr. Rana knows that during a CPN7 process evidence on the merit of a claim is inadmissible. Again, Mr. Rana has chosen to ignore that, and did so knowingly and intentionally. Mr. Rana evades and ignores the Court’s procedures.

I conclude Mr. Rana believes he should not be subject to the Court’s rules and procedure. Mr. Rana says he can do what he wants, because he, “a warrior”, answers to a higher authority. [ 14 ] Counsel for Ms. Baker argues Mr. Rana’s “... failure, or refusal, to follow [the Court’s] direction is indicia of, and reflective of, the plaintiff being a vexatious litigant whose behaviour is ungovernable.” I agree.

In Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 347 at paras 49-52 [ Ubah #2 ], I concluded that when a litigant ignores CPN7’s procedure, then that is both a basis to exclude extraneous materials submitted along with a Written Submission, and to conclude that a litigant has engaged in litigation misconduct that supports prospective litigation and litigant management steps. [ 15 ] Following the approach in Ubah #2 , I ignore the 26 “Tabs” of material that Mr. Rana attached to his Written Submission. Mr. Rana filing that material was an intentional abuse of the Court and its processes. I conclude that Mr.

Rana’s intentional and deliberate disobeying of the Court’s instructions and abuse of the CPN7 process is a first independent basis to terminate the Second Action as a proceeding conducted in an abusive and vexatious manner. III CPN7 Analysis [ 16 ] In addition, Mr. Rana was requested to respond to four prima facie fatal defects in the Second Action Statement of Claim. Much of Mr. Rana’s Written Submission are allegations or claims of fact, or references to his 26 “Tabs” of prohibited material that are excluded pursuant to Rule 3.68(3) and CPN7 as explained above.

I will not go into further detail concerning those excluded and irrelevant claims. A. Inadequate Pleadings [ 17 ] Rana #3 at paras 13-19 reviews how the Second Action Statement of Claim only makes bald allegations against Ms. Baker, does not provide an alleged factual basis for the damages claim, and fails to satisfy the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010, Rule 13.7 requirements for how to plead claims of fraud and defamation. [ 18 ] Mr. Rana’s Written Submission is non-responsive to this first prima facie defect. Mr. Rana either restates bald allegations against Ms.

Baker, or attempts to introduce excluded evidence. Counsel for Ms. Baker observes that to the very limited degree that the Second Action Statement of Claim pleads defamation, that statement by Ms. Baker is not defamatory, would be subject to absolute litigation privilege, and would be too late and prohibited by the Limitations Act , RSA 2000, c L-12 as a basis for the Second Action. [ 19 ] I conclude that Mr. Rana has not rebutted the Rana #3 conclusion that the Second Action Statement of Claim failed to provide adequate pleadings. What Mr.

Rana filed left the Court and Defendant unable to make a meaningful response. That is a second independent basis I conclude the Second Action Statement of Claim should be struck out as an abuse of the Court. B. Collateral Attack

[20] Rana #3 at paras 20-25 concludes that the Second Action is a collateral attack on the lawsuit struck out in Rana #2 becausethe Second Action alleges the same alleged factual wrongdoing as the First Action. [21] Mr. Rana’s Written Submission says that the fact the Second Action is a defamation proceeding means the Second Action hasa different basis than the First Action. The First Action was based on a breach of a model lawyers’ code of conduct. Ms.

Baker respondsthat the Second Action is intended “... to circumvent the effect of [Rana #2] ...”, and is therefore a collateral attack, an abuse of theCourt, and demonstrates the Second Action was filed for an improper, vexatious purpose - to impede Ms. Baker from engaging inlegitimate professional activities as a lawyer representative in the Rana v Rana litigation. [22] I conclude Mr. Rana has not rebutted the conclusion in Rana #3. In Rana #3, I compared the factual claims underpinning theFirst Action and Second Action, and showed these were the same. Mr.

Rana cannot engage two proceedings that emerge from the sameallegedly tortious acts: Cahoon v Franks, (SCC), [1967] SCR 455. I, therefore, conclude that the Second Action is anabusive collateral attack on Rana #2, and the outcome of the First Action. That is a third independent basis why I conclude Mr. Ranaabused the Court when he filed the Second Action Statement of Claim, and why the Second Action Statement of Claim should be struckout pursuant to Rule 3.68. C.

Excessive Remedies [23] In Rana #3 at paras 26-27, I reviewed how the damages sought in the Second Action are excessive, noting the Andrews vGrand & Toy Alberta Ltd, (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 229, 83 DLR (3d) 452 cap on general damages, and that Mr. Rana hasprovided no evidence to support claims of lost business opportunities and profits. [24] The Written Submission by Mr. Rana makes reference to general principles concerning damages, but effective admits that thegeneral damages claim he made had no foundation other than his personal perceived emotional suffering and alleged alienation fromrelatives. Otherwise, Mr.

Rana attempts to introduce evidence from external sources, which are excluded by Rule 3.68(3). [25] Since Mr. Rana has not rebutted that the Second Action sought excessive remedies, I conclude that is a fourth separate andindependent reason to conclude the Second Action Statement of Claim should be struck out as an abuse of the Court. IV. Conclusion [26] Mr. Rana’s Docket 2101 06413 Statement of Claim is struck out in toto on multiple, independent, bases pursuant to CPN7para 3(

c) and Rule 3.68. Mr. Rana’s action against Ms. Baker was a hopeless proceeding that abused the Court, its processes, and theDefendant Ms. Baker. Mr. Rana knowingly and deliberately abused the Court’s processes. [27] 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. [28] Counsel for Ms. Baker in the Written Reply argued that the Second Action warrants additional cost consequences: Given the plaintiffs improper litigation behaviour as clearly evidenced, it would also be appropriate for the Court to exercise itsdiscretion as set out in

Part 10 of the Rules of Court and order significant costs against the plaintiff. The plaintiffs recent claim was filedfor an improper purpose, is vexatious and friviolous, has no hope for success, and is an abuse of this Court's processes. By engaging inthis improper litigation behaviour and utilizing scarce Court resources, the plaintiff has engaged r. 10.33(2)(

g) as being a "party [who]has engaged in misconduct". Significant costs should follow. [29] I agree that the abusive character of the Second Action, and Mr. Rana’s knowing, intentional, and deliberate refusal to followCourt instructions and the CPN7 procedure, raises the question of whether Mr. Rana should be subject to an elevated cost award abovethat set in

Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court. I note in Rana #2 at para 28, I ordered Mr. Rana pay Ms. Baker $2,000, forthwith. [30] Mr. Rana has seven days from the date of this Decision to make up to five pages of submissions on why he should not besubject to an elevated cost award given his repeated, deliberate, and knowing abuse of the Court and Ms. Baker. I caution Mr. Rana thatif he again ignores the Court’s instructions, that would likely simply represent a further basis for the Court to take disciplinary steps. [31] 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 21st day of July, 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