Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2021 ABQB 607

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2021 ABQB 607 Date: 20210803 Docket: 2101 03049 Registry: Calgary Between: Navin Joshi Plaintiff - and - Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] In a decision reported as Joshi v Saskatchewan , 2021 ABQB 317 [ Joshi #2 ], I struck out two lawsuits by Navin Joshi [Mr.

Joshi] pursuant to the Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] document-based show-cause procedure. In that decision I made numerous unfavourable findings concerning Mr. Joshi’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench litigation, including that: 1. Mr. Joshi’s lawsuits were collateral attacks that attempted to persistently re-litigate issues that had been addressed and resolved on multiple occasions by Canadian courts ( Joshi #2 at paras 17-27 ); 2. Mr.

Joshi engaged in hopeless litigation because he sought to file lawsuits against defendants who were immune to litigation before the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench ( Joshi #2 at paras 28-31 );

3. Mr. Joshi’s lawsuits were an abuse of the Court for failing to provide the minimum adequate pleadings that would allow for meaningful responses by the Court and the Defendants, a factor aggravated by Mr. Joshi’s extraordinary, but unsubstantiated, claims ( Joshi #2 at paras 32-40 ); 4. in the two lawsuits Mr. Joshi sought excessive and impossible remedies, and, furthermore, Mr. Joshi subsequently argued he never really sought those damages amounts, but only made claims of that kind for political purposes, a factor that I concluded aggravated Mr. Joshi’s misconduct ( Joshi #2 at paras 41-43 ); and 5. Mr.

Joshi is a “forum shopper”, a litigant who evades management of abusive activity by switching between jurisdictions after being blocked in previous jurisdictions by litigation and litigant management steps ( Joshi #2 at paras 44-49 ). [ 2 ] In light of Mr. Joshi’s persistent repeated abuse of Canadian courts, and Mr. Joshi ignoring numerous unfavourable court decisions that instructed Mr.

Joshi on the true state of his rights, and the appropriate manner in which to exercise them, in Joshi #2 at para 55 , I invited the responding Joshi #2 parties to initiate a Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 , ss 23-23.1 court access restriction process in relation to Mr. Joshi. That invitation was made in compliance with the instructions in Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 . I requested a response to that invitation by May 24, 2021. [ 3 ] On May 21, 2021, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce [CIBC] responded that it intended to pursue a Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1 application in relation to Mr. Joshi.

On June 29, 2021, CIBC filed that Application, supported by an Affidavit of Richard G. Chiasson, sworn on June 28, 2021. On June 30, 2021, the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General indicated it would not participate in the CIBC Application, pursuant to Judicature Act , s 23.1. [ 4 ] The CIBC Application will proceed on a document-only basis following this Court’s usual practice: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 565-576 [ Unrau #2 ]. The Application will follow these steps: 1.

CIBC has until August 20, 2021 to file and serve written submissions and provide further affidavit evidence. 2. Mr. Joshi has until September 3, 2021 to file and serve written submissions and provide affidavit evidence. 3. CIBC has until September 10, 2021 to file and serve rebuttal argument. [ 5 ] The CIBC Application seeks that this Court impose court access restrictions in all three Alberta Courts.

I request that the parties make submissions concerning under what circumstances does the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench have jurisdiction to impose Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1 court access gatekeeping that affects litigation before the Provincial Court of Alberta, and the Alberta Court of Appeal, pursuant to Judicature Act , s 23.1(7)? Feeney v Her Majesty the Queen in the Right of Alberta , 2021 ABCA 255 and Manson (Estate) v Obsidian Energy Ltd , 2020 ABQB 632 may be relevant to that issue. [ 6 ] I also conclude that Mr.

Joshi should be subject to interim court access restrictions until the Judicature Act , ss 23-23.1 Application process is completed. I take this step because Mr. Joshi has already been found by this Court to have engaged in multiple and repeated instances of abusive litigation, because Mr. Joshi is a forum shopper, and since Mr. Joshi has engaged in collateral and duplicative litigation inside and outside Alberta. [ 7 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Interim Court Access Restriction Order. Mr. Joshi’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Mr.

Joshi may be served this Decision and the Interim Court Access Restriction Order by email to: ntjoshi@gmail.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 3 rd day of August, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Geoffrey H. Adair Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP for the Applicant Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce