Rana v Baker, 2021 ABQB 581

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rana v Baker, 2021 ABQB 581 Date: 20210723 Docket: 2101 06413 Registry: Calgary Between: Salim Rana Plaintiff - and - Erin Baker Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 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, the May 18, 2021 Statement of Claim was, by letter referred by Counsel for Ms. Baker, as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 6. In a decision

reported as Rana v Baker , 2021 ABQB 277 [ Rana #3 ], I concluded that the Statement of Claim was prima facie an abuse of the Court on multiple bases: Rana #3 at para 29 . [ 3 ] Mr. Rana was invited to make an up to ten-page Written Submission to indicate why his lawsuit was a valid action: Rana #3 at para 30 . Instead, Mr. Rana submitted 148 pages of materials. Part of this package was a four-page letter in which Mr.

Rana directly stated he would not follow the Court’s instructions and the CPN7 process because he is “a warrior” in pursuit of “HONESTY AND FAIRNESS”. 134 pages of the 148-page bundle were an attempt to introduce evidence into the CPN7 process. That is prohibited by Rule 3.68(3). [ 4 ] What is particularly relevant is that Mr. Rana’s response to the Rana #3 instructions occurred after Mr. Rana had already completed an earlier CPN7 process: Rana v Baker , 2021 ABQB 277 , action struck out in toto as an abuse of the Court, Rana v Baker , 2021 ABQB 352 [ Rana #2 ]. Mr.

Rana had already been instructed that evidence is not permitted in a CPN7 / Rule 3.68 process. Mr. Rana ignored that in his response to Rana #3 . [ 5 ] Mr. Rana’s May 18, 2021 Statement of Claim was subsequently struck out in a decision reported as Rana v Baker , 2021 ABQB 571 [ Rana #4 ]. In Rana #4 , I concluded that Mr. Rana had failed to rebut the prima facie defects identified in Rana #3 , and so the Statement of Claim was struck out on three independent bases. [ 6 ] I also concluded in Rana #4 , at paras 10-15 , that Mr.

Rana’s conduct in the Rana #3 CPN7 was itself abusive and vexatious, and that represented a further basis to strike out the May 18, 2021 Statement of Claim. Mr. Rana was conducting his litigation in a manner that warranted that step. I concluded: 1. by submitting an overlong “Written Submission”, Mr. Rana deliberately, knowingly, and intentionally defied the Court’s instructions, and rejected the CPN7 process, and the operation of Rule 3.68 as set by the Alberta Rules of Court ; 2. Mr.

Rana was already aware he had no basis to attempt to introduce evidence into the CPN7 / Rule 3.68 process, but he intentionally, and knowingly, did exactly that anyway; and 3. Mr. Rana took these steps because, as he said in his July 6, 2021 letter, Mr. Rana does not have to agree with or follow the Court’s rules and procedures. [ 7 ] The usual practice of this Court is to award costs to a party who refers a filing for CPN7 review, and then that filing is subsequently struck out: 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 . Counsel for Ms. Baker submitted that Mr. Rana’s conduct warranted elevated costs: Rana #4 at para 28 . I agreed that Mr. Rana’s conduct potentially deserved that step, and requested that Mr. Rana within seven days provide up to five pages of written argument as to why he ought to not be subject to an elevated costs award: Rana #4 at para 30 . [ 8 ] Mr. Rana responded the following day. First, Mr.

Rana complained that the Court had refused to consider his “factual and legal arguments”. He said that “... [denied] my right to seek legal redress.” Mr. Rana said he had complied with the CPN7 process. He had only submitted 10 pages called “Written Submissions”. The other 134 pages of documents were “something else”. [ 9 ] Mr.

Rana in his written argument made a number of complaints about the CPN7 process and its results, for example: By striking down this claim, this Court has shown its disregard of litigants who have sought its aid to obtain justice for their legal concerns and has displayed its lack of empathy for a son who is looking out for his mother. [ 10 ] Mr. Rana says his 148 pages of materials were appropriate to show his claim was not frivolous or fabricated. Mr.

Rana also rejects the conclusion of Rana #4 : “The filing of the action was a proper legal remedy in accordance both to the Rules of Alberta and the Canadian Constitution.” All Mr. Rana is doing is seeking justice: ... My goal is never to bring the administration of justice into disrepute, but to seek justice He still believes that justice will always win in whatever situation he may be put through, and everything will be placed where they belong. If only the Court acknowledged the evidence given, it would be clear that my only goal is for justice to prevail. Mr.

Rana also stated he intends to appeal Rana #4 to the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 11 ] Mr. Rana’s written argument cites Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 and other jurisprudence for the proposition that self- represented litigants [SRLs] have special status and privileges, and that sets them aside from other parties who operate in Canadian courts. [ 12 ] Mr. Rana says he should only be subject to elevated or punitive costs if he “... has been exhibiting harassing, annoying or malicious behaviour conducted on the basis of an improper motive. ...”. He claims that is not Mr.

Rana: I have maintained respect throughout the court’s process. I have never acted unreasonably nor was I disrespectful or disruptive in any manner in all my dealings with this Honorable Court. [ 13 ] I conclude that Mr. Rana should be subject to an elevated costs award given his conduct in the Rana #3 CPN7 process. I do not accept Mr. Rana’s claims that he respects the Court’s processes and has acted properly. In fact, his own statements and actions indicate the opposite. Mr. Rana follows court procedure when that suits him. Otherwise, for Mr. Rana, “the means justify the ends”. If Mr.

Rana does not like Canadian law and court procedure, he simply ignored that. [ 14 ] I make that conclusion on how Mr. Rana conducted himself in the CPN7 processes that ended with Rana #2 and Rana #4 . However, the substantive outcomes of Rana #2 and Rana #4 CPN7 procedures illustrate that Mr. Rana’s procedural abuse of the Alberta

Court of Queen’s Bench is only an aspect of a broader pattern: Mr. Rana repeatedly abuses the Court and opposing parties by the kind and substance of the litigation Mr. Rana initiates and pursues. There is a larger pattern of persistent and repeated bad conduct by Mr. Rana. [ 15 ] I do not believe Mr. Rana’s claims of good faith. Actions speak louder than words. As for Mr.

Rana’s attempts to shelter himself by saying he is an SRL, and should not be accountable for his misconduct, I agree with Myers J who, in Oliveira v Oliveira , 2021 ONSC 5038 at paras 33-34 , observed how SRLs are misapplying Pintea v Johns and the CJC Statement of Principles on Self- represented Litigants and Accused Persons “endorsed” in that decision: ... Mr. Oliveira makes a mistake that is commonly made by self-represented litigants. He is trying to weaponize the Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons.

They are not an incantation that can be recited to trump the law or to invent a right of a self-represented party to sue whomever she or he wishes for every perceived wrong. As set out in the

preamble to the Statement of Principles, they provide guidance to participants in the justice system “to ensure that self-represented persons are provided with fair access and equal treatment by the court.” ... In summarizing the CJC’s Statement of Principles on Self-represented Litigants and Accused Persons, Mr. Oliveira omitted an important section. He did not mention the burden on self-represented litigants who come to court to sue people: For Self-Represented Persons 1. Self-represented persons are expected to familiarize themselves with the relevant legal practices and procedures pertaining to their case. 2.

Self-represented persons are expected to prepare their own case. 3. Self-represented persons are required to be respectful of the court process and the officials within it. Vexatious litigants will not be permitted to abuse the process. [ 16 ] Mr. Rana has not respected this Court’s processes. He, instead, openly and defiantly misuses them. [ 17 ] Rule 10.31 provides this Court a broad discretion to award costs as is appropriate, given the conduct of litigation and other factors.

In Canada, the law is clear that costs operate as a “carrot and stick” to promote good litigation conduct, and to discourage misuse of legal processes and waste of judicial resources: British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band , 2003 SCC 71 at paras 22-26 . Rule 10.33(2) identifies kinds of litigation misconduct that may be considered when evaluating whether costs should be awarded, and the amount that is appropriate. I have already identified how Mr. Rana’s litigation activity meets many of the Rule 10.33(2) bad conduct criteria. Beyond that, Mr. Rana is clearly ignoring the general

section 1.2 “Purpose and intention” provisions of the Alberta Rules of Court . [ 18 ] Taking into accounts set in

Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court , Rana #2 ordered $2,000 in costs against Mr. Rana. I conclude Mr. Rana’s continued, deliberate, knowing, and intentional abuse of the Court in the Rana v Baker Docket 2101 06413 warrants a substantial disciplinary and punitive response. Mr. Rana is ordered to pay $5,000 in costs to Ms. Baker, forthwith. [ 19 ] Counsel for Ms. Baker will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this Decision. Mr. Rana’s approval of that Order is dispensed 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 23 rd 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