Christofi v Kahane Law Office, 2021 ABQB 897

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Christofi v Kahane Law Office, 2021 ABQB 897 Date: 20211110 Docket: 2101 02852 Registry: Calgary Between: Mike Christofi and Quality Painting Plaintiffs - and - Kahane Law Office Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mike Christofi [Mr. Christofi] and his business, Quality Painting, in 2017 sued a customer in the Provincial Court of Alberta (Docket P1790104251) concerning unpaid debts, and lost.

Instead, the customer received counterclaim damages of $12,000 for defective workmanship. Mr. Christofi has since continued that dispute in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in several actions (Dockets Nos. 1901 15377 and 2101 02852). [ 2 ] On August 5, 2021, in a decision reported as Christofi v Kahane Law Office , 2021 ABQB 608 [ Christofi #1 ], Hollins J

struck out Mr. Christofi’s most recent lawsuit in this dispute, concluded that there was no basis for Mr. Christofi’s lawsuit, and the lawsuit was “... a vexatious, improper pleading and a clear attempt to re-litigate an issue already decided, which is a legal abuse of process ...”. Justice Hollins ordered Mr. Christofi pay costs to the Defendant. [ 3 ] That ended the Docket No. 2101 02852 lawsuit. However, on November 5, 2021, Mr.

Christofi filed a document, titled “Application Mike”, whose entire body reads: Remedy claimed or sought: 1. i like Kahane law office and Chadwick Newcombe to stay out of making any jugments and court orders for any cases Betwin Kahane law office and Mike Christofi because is not Fair and he is doing anything he wants and he does not serve it the right way and on time any court orders done by Chadwick Newcombe TO BE REDONE AND STAMPED CORRECTLY BY THE COURT OR BY AN INDEPENDENT AGENT Grounds for making this application: 2. court order without date claim against Kahane low office Notice of appeal claim 2001-02852 [Sic.] [ 4 ] What, exactly, Mr.

Christofi intends to achieve with the “Mike Application” is not clear, beyond that Mr. Christofi obviously disagrees with the outcome of the Docket No. 2101 02852 Action and Christofi #1 . [ 5 ] On November 8, 2021, Counsel for the Defendant, by letter, referred Mr. Christofi’s “Application Mike” as a candidate Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding [AVAP] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 6. I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. After review of Mr.

Christofi’s “Application Mike”, I conclude that this document is not a candidate for CPN7 because what Mr. Christofi has done is attempted to continue a now terminated action where this Court has no further jurisdiction. [ 6 ] This situation instead matches that in Scheuchner v Neufeld , 2021 ABQB 863 and JRB’s Welding Services Inc v Family Division , 2021 ABQB 52 , where an abusive litigant filed documents that purported to continue a terminated action.

In these instances, this Court did not conduct a CPN7 review of those (non)filings, simply because there was no active court action that remained within the jurisdiction of this Court. Like Scheuchner v Neufeld and JRB’s Welding Services Inc v Family Division , this Court is functus for the Docket No. 2101 02852 Action. [ 7 ] Second, even if I were to conclude that this Court somehow retained jurisdiction to respond to Mr. Christofi’s “Application Mike”, I would still reject that filing. As I have alluded to, I am unclear on what Mr. Christofi seeks with his “Application Mike”.

In Arabi v Alberta , 2014 ABQB 295 , Gill J, at paras 82-85, endorsed the conclusion in kisikawpimootewin v Canada , 2004 FC 1426 at para 9 that a court may strike a proceeding based on “gibberish”: incomprehensible arguments and allegations, where the defendant is “left both embarrassed and unable to defend itself” and the court faces “a proceeding so ill-defined that it is unable to discern an argument, or identify any specific material facts.” I conclude the “Application Mike” document is gibberish, and, therefore, is an abuse of the Court and the Defendant. [ 8 ] I therefore order: 1.

The November 5, 2021 “Application Mike” document is unfiled, and only remains in the Docket No. 2101 02852 Action record as a document in support of this Decision. 2. The Clerks of the Court shall refuse to accept any further filings or other documents from Mr. Christofi in Docket No. 2101 02852. The Clerks are authorized, at their discretion, to not respond to Mr. Christofi in the future regarding the Docket No. 2101 02852 Action. 3. The December 2, 2021 Justice Chambers hearing for “Application Mike” is cancelled. 4. Mr.

Christofi is ordered to pay the Defendant $2,500 in costs, forthwith. [ 9 ] Counsel for the Defendant will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this Decision. Mr. Christofi’s approval of that Order is not required, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). A copy of the Order accompanying this decision shall be served on the Clerks, pursuant to Rule 13.45. This Decision and the corresponding Order will be served on Mr. Christofi via the email indicated in “Application Mike”: michalis54@yahoo.com [ 10 ] If Mr. Christofi has a remedy in this matter, that is with the Alberta Court of Appeal.

Mindful of the Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 instruction that Canadian judges shall provide information on litigation alternatives to SRLs, I direct Mr. Christofi to take his concerns about the Docket No. 2101 02852 matter to that forum, if he seeks to continue his claims against the Defendant. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 10 th day of November, 2021.

J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Chadwick Newcombe Kahane Law Office for the Defendant