Ubah v Uba, 2021 ABQB 70

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Ubah v Uba, 2021 ABQB 70 Date: 20210128 Docket: FL01 34577 Registry: Calgary Between: Chinedu Gideon Ubah Applicant - and - Ifeoma Vivian Uba & Uchechukwu (Uchechi) Uba Respondents _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On September 6, 2019 in a decision reported as Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 692 [ Ubah #3 ], I imposed strict court access restrictions against Chinedu Gideon Ubah [Mr.

Ubah] that, among other things, required that Mr. Ubah may only file new proceedings at the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench if he received permission, or “leave”, of the Court.

[ 2 ] On January 25, 2021, I received by email a request by Mr. Ubah to file an application with the Court, accompanied by a supporting Affidavit of the same date. Mr. Ubah sought permission to file an application to become a legal guardian of a minor: Chisom Righteousness Uba, who is Mr. Ubah’s nephew, and who currently resides with Mr. Ubah in Calgary, Alberta. II.

Test for Leave to File [ 3 ] “... [A] person subject to court access control is presumed to engage in illegitimate litigation unless the Court is satisfied otherwise. ...”: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at para 19 , aff’d 2018 ABCA 111 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019). [ 4 ] Permission to initiate litigation or continue stayed litigation both test the merit of court activities on the same standard.

A person subject to court access restrictions must: 1. establish reasonable grounds for the litigation, and 2. depose fully and completely as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding. ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 27; VWW v Wasylyshen , 2013 ABQB 327 at para 42 , aff’d 2014 ABCA 121 ). [ 5 ] This threshold, which must be established on a balance of probabilities, is not a high one, and in many ways parallels the test for

summary judgment: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 26. The person subject to court access leave restrictions is expected to put his or her “best foot forward” to establish the basis to initiate or continue an action: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 26-27. [ 6 ] The documents necessary to seek leave are an affidavit to provide evidence, and, in the case of a new action, application, or other litigation step, a copy of the proposed filing: e.g., Re Moore , 2018 ABQB 261 ; Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 .

Leave may be granted in part: Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906; Belway v Lalande-Weber , 2017 ABCA 108 at para 10 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37708 (21 December 2017). [ 7 ] Submissions to initiate or continue litigation may also be rejected: 1. where the materials do not satisfy the criteria set out in the court access restriction order ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38267 (31 January 2019); Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38266 (31 January 2019)); 2. if the submissions exhibit indicia of abusive litigation ( ET v Calgary Catholic School District No 1 , 2017 ABCA 349 at para 12 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38081 (8 November 2018); Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Trinity Place Foundation of Alberta v Templanza , 2019 ABQB 45 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ; Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP , 2019 ABQB 396 ); 3. where the abusive litigant refuses to provide the proposed filing ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ); 4. where the abusive litigant provides false information ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ); and 5. where the abusive litigant fails to provide materials that are required to evaluate the proposed litigation step, such as an appeal transcript ( Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ).

III. Mr. Ubah’s Proposed Filing [ 8 ] Mr. Ubah’s January 25, 2021 affidavit complies with the existing court access restriction order. Mr. Ubah proposes to file a Family Law Act , SA 2003, c F-4.5 , s 23 application to become a guardian of his nephew who is a citizen of Nigeria, but who Mr. Ubah reports has been in his care in Canada since January 1, 2021. Mr. Ubah attached to his affidavit an Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada “Study Permit” that indicate his nephew is permitted to remain in Canada to attend school, but that the child must leave Canada by June 30, 2021. [ 9 ] Mr.

Ubah’s affidavit also deposes that the child’s parents, who are in Nigeria, have consented to Mr. Ubah being the child’s guardian, and that Mr. Ubah should therefore be authorized to act as the child’s guardian. Mr. Ubah’s affidavit attaches a December 29, 2020 “Affidavit of Facts RE: Guardianship Consent” that deposes that the child’s parents endorse Mr. Ubah acting as his nephew’s guardian. [ 10 ] Mr. Ubah’s proposed filing satisfies the criteria for a non-abusive action. I therefore grant Mr.

Ubah permission to file his proposed application, and that for the purposes of only this application, paragraphs 3, 6, and 16 of his court access restrictions are waived. [ 11 ] While I seized myself with Mr. Ubah’s activities in this Court ( Ubah #3) , I waive my seizure for the hearing of this matter and will not hear Mr. Ubah’s substantive application. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 28 th day of January, 2021.

J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Chinedu Gideon Ubah for the Self-Represented Litigant