Rana v Rana, 2021 ABQB 610

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rana v Rana, 2021 ABQB 610 Date: 20210804 Docket: 1501 02369 Registry: Calgary Between: Salim Rana Respondent / Plaintiff - and - Zahir Rana, Attorney for Gulzar Rana Applicant / Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On March 2, 2015, Salim Rana [Salim] filed an Originating Notice naming his brother, Zahir Rana [Zahir], as the Respondent.

Zahir acts as the attorney for Gulzar Rana, the mother of Salim and Zahir Rana, under an Enduring Power of Attorney. The resulting Rana v Rana , Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 1501 02369 matter continues to this date. Salim has also initiated a number of other subsequent lawsuits that in various ways relate to the parent Rana v Rana Docket 1501 02369 Action. [ 2 ] On July 23, 2021, Zahir filed an Application that seeks to have court access restrictions imposed against Salim, pursuant to

Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1. Paragraph 1 of the Application frames that prohibition in this manner: (

a) declaring the Respondent, Salim Rana, a vexatious litigant; (

b) prohibiting the Respondent from instituting or continuing any proceedings in the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of Queen’s Bench or the Court of Appeal, on his own behalf or on behalf of anyone else, where such proceedings: (

i) are against the Applicant Zahir Rana, either as Attorney for Gulzar Rana (“Gulzar”) or on his own behalf, Allisun Rana, Alnoor Rana, Karimaa Rana, Erin Baker, Julie Tannahill, Rana Law, Nuryn Hudani, Karima Hudani, Nizar Hudani, Dilshad Hudani and any lawyers or law firms that represent or have represented these individuals in Actions 2001-13453, 2101-05627, 2101-06413, 2101-07204, 2101- 07841 or any other Actions brought by the Respondent against any of these individuals or law firms after the date of the filing of this Application, or (ii) involve any matters directly or indirectly related to Actions 1501-02369 or 1601-05149, 2101-05627, 2001-13453, 2101-06413, 2101-07204, 2101-07841 or any other Actions brought by the Respondent against any of these individuals or law firms after the date of the filing of this Application; (

c) prohibiting the Respondent from filing any applications or appeals in Court of Queen’s Bench Actions 1501-02369, 1601-05149 (now consolidated as Action 1501-02369); (

d) prohibiting the Respondent from filing any complaints with a law society, on his own behalf or on behalf of anyone else, against Allisun Rana, Erin Baker, Julie Tannahill and any lawyers or law firms that represent or have represented these individuals in Actions 1501-02369, 1601-05149, 2001-13453, 2101-05627, 2101-06413, 2101-07204, 2101-07841 or any other Actions brought by the Respondent against any of these individuals or law firms after the date of the filing of this Application; (

e) directing that, if the Respondent wishes to institute or continue any such proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench, he requires permission from a justice of the Court of Queen's Bench and any such request must be made in writing, to the attention of the Court’s case management counsel; (

f) directing that if the Respondent wishes to institute or continue an appeal of any such proceedings in the Court of Appeal, he requires permission from a single justice of the Court of Appeal and any such request must be made in writing, to the attention of the Case Management Officer (

g) directing that any application for permission in the Court of Queen’s Bench or the Court of Appeal must be in writing, explaining why the proceeding is justified, and the letter must not contain any attachments, other than the Respondent’s proposed application or pleading; [ 3 ] The Application also seeks Orders that Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Docket 2101 05627, 2101 06413, 2101 07204, and 2101 07841 Actions are struck out pursuant to Rule 3.68, with full indemnity costs. [ 4 ] The Application relies on two Affidavits of Zahir, affirmed July 16 and 21, 2021. [ 5 ] The Application is scheduled for a hearing on August 26, 2021.

That hearing date is hereby ordered cancelled. Instead, the 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. Zahir has until August 20, 2021 to file and serve written submissions and provide further affidavit evidence. 2. Salim has until September 3, 2021 to file and serve written submissions and provide affidavit evidence. 3. Zahir has until September 10, 2021 to file and serve rebuttal argument. The Court will then render its decision.

Extensions of these deadlines may be available in appropriate circumstances: Unrau #2 at paras 571-572 . [ 6 ] After review of the Application, I specifically request the parties address several questions: 1. 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. 2. What authority does the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench have to restrict Salim from making law society complaints without the participation in this proceeding of the Law Society of Alberta, and, possibly, other Canadian law societies? Makis v Alberta Health Services , 2020 ABCA 168 and Carter v Alberta (Ministry of Justice and Solicitor General) , 2019 ABQB 491 may be relevant to that issue. 3.

What should be the scope of court access restrictions in relation to Salim, if any, given the requirement that a court access restriction order is explicit and enforceable: Unrau #2 at paras 782-799 . [ 7 ] I conclude that Salim 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 Salim has already been found by this Court to have engaged in multiple and repeated instances of abusive litigation, and Salim has engaged in collateral attacks on prior decisions of the Court.

Salim has refused to follow court procedure, with the result that Salim was assessed elevated cost awards given Salim’s open and defiant abuse of court processes: Rana v Baker , 2021 ABQB 277 , action struck out in toto as an abuse of the Court, 2021 ABQB 352 ; Rana v Baker , 2021 ABQB 277,

action struck out in toto as an abuse of the Court, 2021 ABQB 571 , elevated costs awarded 2021 ABQB 581 . [ 8 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Interim Court Access Restriction Order. Salim’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Salim may be served this Decision and the Interim Court Access Restriction Order by email to: salimrana@icloud.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 4 th day of August, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Andrew Wilson JSS Barristers for the Applicant