Tican v Alamgir, 2023 ABKB 325

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Tican v Alamgir, 2023 ABKB 325 Date: 20230530 Dockets: 2001 14447, 2101 05814 Registry: Calgary Between: Docket 2001 14447 Adrian Tican Plaintiff - and - Abdur Alamgir, Also Known As Abdur Rashid Alamgir Defendant And between: Docket 2101 05814 Adrian Tican Plaintiff - and - Abdur Alamgir, also known as Abdur Rashid Alamgir also known as Dr.

Abdur Alamgir and My Doctors Clinic Surfers also known as Global Healthcare Pty Ltd also known as Global Healthcare Pty Ltd also known as Global Healthcare Pty Ltd ACN 163169757 also known as Global Healthcare Pty Ltd ACN 163 169 757 and Tariq Hayat Jamaldini also known as Tariq Hayat also known as Tariq Hayat Baloch also known as Dr Tariq Hayat Jamaldini and Shelley Lindsay also known as Shelley Hahne and Katrinia Lynn and Ebonie Bryant and John Doe(

s) and Jane Doe(

s) and Company 1 Defendants

Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on June 21, 2023; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] This Memorandum of Decision is the latest step in the attempt of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta to manage extensive litigation activity of Adrian Tican (Mr. Tican). This particular Memorandum of Decision responds to four specific issues: 1) Mr.

Tican’s use of multiple different names in his Court of King’s Bench of Alberta litigation; 2) Mr. Tican’s demands that the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta redact information in already issued Memoranda of Decision, and that the Court no longer issue reported Memoranda of Decision in relation to Mr. Tican’s litigation, but, instead, that the Court only communicate with Mr. Tican in private, by “letters”; 3) the discovery that Mr.

Tican has made demands and threats to a third party based on a non-existent Order of this Court; and 4) the request from the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta that the Attorney General of Alberta (Alberta) initiate a Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 process in relation to Mr. Tican that imposes indeterminate court access gatekeeping on Mr. Tican in activities before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. [ 2 ] A detailed review of Mr. Tican’s activity is required to appreciate how this Court is responding to these issues. First, Mr. Tican has a lengthy history of problematic conduct in Alberta Courts.

Very unusually, Mr. Tican, on August 28, 2017, voluntarily agreed to be subject to limited scope court access gatekeeping by what is sometimes called a “vexatious litigant Order”: Alberta Human Rights Commission v Tican (28 August 2017), Calgary 1701 10524 (Alta QB). That step occurred after Mr. Tican initiated nine unsuccessful actions that targeted the Alberta Human Rights Commission, along with numerous other parties: Tican v Alamgir , 2022 ABKB 626 at para 62 ( Tican ABKB #1 ). [ 3 ] The Alberta Human Rights Commission matters are part of an extensive litigation profile by Mr. Tican. Mr.

Tican has conducted at least 21 unsuccessful Court of King’s Bench of Alberta and Court of Appeal of Alberta proceedings: Tican #1 ; Tican v Alamgir , 2023 ABCA 115 ( Tican ABCA #1 ). Mr. Tican currently has at least 12 active lawsuits in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, but those proceedings are currently under an interim stay pending this Court addressing Mr. Tican’s problematic and abusive activities: Tican ABKB #1 at para 64 . [ 4 ] Thus far, Mr.

Tican’s recent activities before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta have led to three Memoranda of Decision: Tican ABKB #1 – this omnibus Memorandum of Decision addressed a range of issues: • Mr. Tican initiated at least 23 Court processes based on illegal fee waivers: paras 5-22. A procedure was put in place to identify the extent to which Mr. Tican had evaded paying court filing fees. Those amounts were subsequently paid by Mr. Tican: Tican v Alamgir , 2022 ABKB 843 at para 6 ( Tican ABKB #3 ). • Mr.

Tican had initiated duplicative and inadequately pled proceedings, that resulted in a Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7) review: paras 23-39. • Mr. Tican was discovered to have engaged in litigation in which Mr. Tican purported to represent persons at the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. Mr. Tican also was preparing and filing Court documents in matters in which he was not involved. Mr. Tican was made subject to interim steps to prohibit him acting as a litigation representative, preparing Court documents for third parties, and being

involved in litigation of third parties: paras 40-49. • Mr. Tican was using multiple aliases in his litigation. Mr. Tican was required to provide an Affidavit and government issued identification to confirm his legal name: paras 51-52. • The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Clerks had experienced multiple forms of abusive conduct by Mr. Tican. That included Mr. Tican “clerk shopping”: Mr. Tican would repeatedly access different Clerks until he obtained what he demanded. Mr. Tican also paid for Court services, such as Court filing fees, with a credit card, but subsequently reversed the charges for no valid basis.

Mr. Tican also did the same with payments to Transcript Management Services. As a consequence of Mr. Tican’s problematic conduct, the Court imposed a strict communications and contact regime to mitigate Mr. Tican’s problematic activity, and Mr. Tican was required to make all future payments to the Court via bank drafts: paras 53-56. • Interim court access gatekeeping was imposed until the scope and nature of Mr. Tican’s litigation misconduct was evaluated, and appropriate steps taken: paras 57-64.

Tican v Alamgir , 2022 ABKB 664 ( Tican ABKB #2 ) – The lawsuit subject to CPN7 review in Tican ABKB #1 was struck out when Mr. Tican did not respond to Tican ABKB #1 . What subsequently came to light is that Mr. Tican came to an agreement with the Defendant to discontinue this proceeding, but did not inform the Court of that: Tican ABKB #3 at paras 7-9 . Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Tican ABKB #3 at para 9 concluded that the discontinuance “... does not rebut the illegal and abusive characteristics ...” of the now terminated litigation.

Tican ABKB #3 – This second omnibus Memorandum of Decision addressed a range of subjects originating in Tican ABKB #1 : • Mr. Tican acknowledged that he is not a lawyer, but indicated he is an active litigation representative for hire, operating in the Provincial Court of Alberta [now the Court of Justice of Alberta]. Mr. Tican rejected the Tican ABKB #1 conclusion that he was acting outside his permitted role in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, but also denied the law applied by this Court to reach that conclusion. Mr. Tican claimed the Clerks had provided false information about Mr. Tican’s activities.

Associate Chief Justice Rooke rejected Mr. Tican’s allegations about the Clerks, and concluded that Mr. Tican’s litigation record, and his ongoing abuse of the Court and its processes, meant Mr. Tican is not a suitable person to conduct litigation or to act as a litigation representative in other persons’ matters. The representation and third-party litigation restrictions imposed on Mr. Tican in Tican ABKB #1 were therefore made permanent: paras 25-40. • Mr. Tican claimed that information provided by the Clerks that described his conduct was false. For example, Mr.

Tican declared he never has engaged in “clerk shopping”, that he always followed the Clerks’ instructions, and that Mr. Tican has the utmost respect for this Court’s staff. Mr. Tican did not deny he had reversed payments of Court fees. Mr. Tican stated he should not be limited in how he conducts his Court activities. These claims were rejected by Associate Chief Justice Rooke, who concluded the current structure imposed on Mr. Tican’s interactions with the Court and payment of fees should continue indefinitely: paras 19-20. • Mr. Tican supplied an Affidavit in response to the requirement in Tican ABKB #1 that Mr.

Tican provide proof of his actual legal name. While Mr. Tican did provide an Affidavit, the Affidavit did not depose of what is Mr. Tican’s actual name. Instead, Mr. Tican deposed he was answering “... your request to the best of my understanding ...” and attached photocopies of two redacted non- identification government-issued cards. Associate Chief Justice Rooke drew a negative inference from Mr. Tican not responding to the requirement in Tican ABKB #1 , and ordered a further Affidavit in which Mr.

Tican explicitly deposes as to his name, and provides a birth certificate and government issued photo ID: paras 41-45. • Mr. Tican rejected being subject to interim court access gatekeeping, and argued case management is the only litigation management mechanism that might apply to Mr. Tican’s litigation. Associate Chief Justice Rooke rejected that, observing Mr. Tican’s pattern of problematic, uncooperative, abusive litigation activities was continuing. [ 5 ] Finally, in Tican ABKB #3 , Associate Chief Justice Rooke designated that I would continue with steps to manage Mr.

Tican’s litigation, in light of Associate Chief Justice Rooke’s retirement in December, 2022. [ 6 ] As a consequence of his reversing credit card charges, Mr. Tican has still not paid Transcript Management Services for these Court of Justice of Alberta transcripts that Mr. Tican has received: • 504147 AB LTD operating as Calgary BMW v Tican – Court of Justice of Alberta Action No. P2190100977 (two transcripts) • Tican v City of Calgary also known as Calgary Parking Authority - Court of Justice of Alberta Action No. P1790103487 (two transcripts) I note that the Court of Justice of Alberta Action No.

P2190100977 transcripts were submitted as part of a Court of King’s Bench of Alberta appeal: Tican v 504147 Alberta Ltd , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2201 06365. [ 7 ] A final relevant background factor is that on October 17, 2022, Mr. Tican filed an appeal of Tican ABKB #1 : Tican v Alamgir , Court of Appeal of Alberta Action No. 2201 0239AC. Mr. Tican did not complete the Court of Appeal of Alberta documentary requirements in a timely manner, but, ultimately, a leave to appeal Application was heard by Antonio JA on March 15, 2023. Mr.

Tican’s appeal had apparently expanded, and now challenged effectively all steps and decisions taken in Tican ABKB #1 and Tican ABKB #3 . In the Reasons for Decision Tican ABCA #1 , Antonio JA first at paras 12-27 confirmed that Mr. Tican is already a “vexatious litigant” for the purposes of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 as a consequence of the August 28, 2017 Alberta Human Rights Commission v Tican order. Then, at paras 29-30 Tican ABCA #1 , Justice Antonio concluded none of Mr. Tican’s 29 grounds of appeal have any reasonable chance of success or raise important legal issues. Instead, Mr.

Tican’s leave to appeal applications should be denied. On that basis, Mr. Tican’s demands to stay this Court’s litigant and litigation management steps pending appeal were also refused: Tican ABCA #1 at para 32 .

[8] In light of the completed Court of Appeal of Alberta ruling that has confirmed this Court’s litigation management stepsimposed on Mr. Tican, I now proceed in this Memorandum of Decision to the four specific issues identified above. II. Mr. Tican’s Name [9] This Court on January 17, 2023 received an Affidavit affirmed by Mr. Tican on January 8, 2023 in response to Tican ABKB#3 at paras 41-45. In that Affidavit, Mr. Tican deposes that his legal name is “Adrian Tican”, and claims any other names he has usedwere “accidental misnomers”. Mr. Tican says he has no birth certificate because he was not born in Canada.

Mr. Tican attached aphotocopy of a current Alberta Driver’s Licence in which he is named “TICAN, Adrian”. [10] Based on these materials, I accept that Mr. Tican has established his legal name is “Adrian Tican”. The Tican ABKB #1 atpara 51 Order that Mr. Tican shall only identify himself in Court documents as “Adrian Tican” thus remains in effect. If any of Mr.Tican’s currently stayed Court of King’s Bench of Alberta matters in which Mr. Tican has used a different name are continued, then Mr.Tican shall file amended pleadings that correct his name and remove his aliases. III.

Memorandum of Decision Redactions and Only PrivateCommunications by Letter [11] A January 3, 2023 letter from Mr. Tican was received along with Mr. Tican’s January 8, 2023 Affidavit. This letter restatesMr. Tican’s statement that he does not have a birth certificate, but also makes an unusual claim. Mr. Tican says that he is being “...accosted, contacted and harassed by strangers whom I do not know and have never met before ...”. These unidentified actors are a“following” of now retired Associate Chief Justice Rooke.

The result is “... such which caused and continues to cause me safety risksand concerns. ...”. [12] Mr. Tican continues that he is not the only victim of the “following”. Other self-represented litigants have “... even beenviolently accosted by such same said individuals ...”. Mr.

Tican continues to say that, because of the “following”, this Court should notpublish: ... further lengthy voluminous memorandums and taking into consideration evident safety concerns ... further communicating with meonly via letters related via email to me on a going forward basis ... [13] In a subsequent undated letter addressed to me, received on March 27, 2023, Mr. Tican states the Court should redactinformation in the published Tican ABKB #1 and Tican ABKB #2 Memoranda of Decision. Mr.

Tican repeats and expands on his claimsabout the “following” of Associate Chief Justice Rooke, now described as “... some sort of online ‘cult’ ...” who “... harass parties,justice participants ... imparting their own brand of vigilante justice and intimidation ...”. Mr. Tican claims to have identified “... verylong and lengthy online forums as a shrine for [Associate Chief Justice Rooke] ...”. Mr. Tican attaches two pages of largely illegiblematerial that appears to be from the “Reddit” website. From what I can read, none of that mentions or relates to Mr.

Tican. [14] As is apparent from my issuing this Memorandum of Decision, I reject Mr. Tican’s demand that the Court only communicatewith him in private, and via letters. I do that for multiple reasons. First, what Mr. Tican proposes defeats the openness principle ofCanadian Court proceedings.

As the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly instructed: ... [it] is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done ... (Brouillard v The Queen, (SCC), [1985] 1 SCR 39 at 43, citing R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy, [1924] 1 KB256 at 259.) [15] This principle is of particular importance when Courts are involved in managing abusive litigants. In many instances, the onlyway that a person will discover an abusive litigant’s history is as a result of searching reported judgments.

For example, only Quebecoperates a public registry of vexatious litigants: Olumide v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2019 ABQB 186 at paras 81-92, aff’d2019 ABCA 210, 2021 ABCA 198. [16] Furthermore, as Associate Chief Justice Rooke observed in Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 atpara 965, detailed and analytical published responses to abusive litigation: ... also has an important public service component. Some SRLs may be concerned about how this Court imposes court accessrestrictions.

The best reply to that is not only to do justice by preventing abuse of the court, but also to show how justice was done andthat result was obtained. Detailed written vexatious litigant decisions provide for that, and given that many abusive litigants are prone tohostile, conspiratorial thinking patterns, that extra effort is warranted. (Emphasis in original.) [17] Beyond these important policy factors, I note that Mr. Tican has provided nothing but bald allegations. Who are theunidentified “following”/“cult”? How was Mr. Tican “... accosted, contacted and harassed ...”? Why does Mr.

Tican fear for his safety?Who are the other self-represented litigants who suffered from violence at the hands of Associate Chief Justice Rooke’s“following”/“cult”? Mr. Tican says he is a competent litigant and litigation representative, so I presume that he knows the kinds ofevidence that would be required to back up his allegations. Instead, Mr. Tican has provided nothing. I draw a negative inference fromthat. [18] I also note that Associate Chief Justice Rooke has been denounced by abusive self-represented litigants for some quite

astonishing alleged wrongdoing. For example, vexatious litigant Keenan Feeney alleged that Associate Chief Justice Rooke and unnamed associates and lawyers had tampered with Mr. Feeney’s motor vehicle brakes, with the intention of killing Mr. Feeney: Simon v Feeney , 2020 ABQB 641 at para 89 .

An even more dramatic example is that vexatious litigant Dale Richardson claimed Associate Chief Justice Rooke is part of a Masonic conspiracy to traffick and molest children, and “... to coordinate a coup d’etat of the executive, judicial and administrative branches of the United States Government and various state governments; Canada, which is the Province to the North in the Declaration of Independence ...” (emphasis in original): Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 274 at para 6 . If these are the kinds of other unnamed victims of the “following”/“cult”, who have been subjected to “violence”, then Mr.

Tican’s vague complaints have even less merit. [ 19 ] Finally, I reject Mr. Tican’s demand for private email communications because the reason why Mr. Tican wants the Court to adopt this unusual and irregular step is quite transparent. Mr. Tican is trying to cover up his improper Court-related activities, his abusive litigation, and the fact this Court is taking steps to manage that. This Court’s published reported judgments are interfering with Mr. Tican’s business and reputation, so Mr. Tican wants to conceal his record. [ 20 ] I make that finding on a balance of probabilities as a logical inference.

However, if there were any question about Mr. Tican’s true intentions,

Part IV of this Memorandum of Decision clears up any lingering uncertainty. IV. Mr. Tican’s Claims Concerning a Fictitious Order [ 21 ] On January 27, 2023, the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta administrative staff member who coordinates with legal information and database resource providers received an inquiry from a Content Specialist for Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters is a commercial legal information provider. The email read: Subject: Query: Tican v Alamgir-Verify Sealing Order Good afternoon, We were informed that a sealing order was released for Tican v Alamgir, 2022 ABKB 664 .

Would it be possible to confirm whether the decision should not be published? Attached for your reference. Thank you, [ 22 ] There is no such Sealing Order. Thomson Reuters was asked to forward the communication that triggered the inquiry. This was that email: Further to the below link: https://www.westlawcanada.com/DynamicData/eDigest/221114prctc.pdf which appears on search engine results in Bing search queries made under my name, I ask that you immediately remove the Tican v.

Alamgir cases from the PDF that is found and opened at the above link, pursuant to, among other laws, Canadian privacy law and the A.T. v. Globe24h.com 2017 federal court of canada decision. I have also contacted the Canadian privacy commissioner office who advised me to first attempt to reach out to you via email so as to have such results immediately removed. Thank you. [ 23 ] Thomson Reuters confirmed that Mr. Tican was the one who made this request. The Court informed Thomson Reuters that Mr.

Tican’s claim that there is a Sealing Order in relation to the litigation in question is false, and that Thomson Reuters should not restrict access to the Tican AKBK #1 , #2 , and #3 Memoranda of Decision. [ 24 ] As Moldaver J observed in R v Tatton , 2015 SCC 33 , Canadian law incorporates “... the common sense inference that a person intends the natural consequences of his or her actions, one can typically infer intent from the performance of the act. ...”. So, there is basically no question as to what Mr. Tican has done. Mr.

Tican has attempted to eliminate public information about his abusive litigation activities, by falsely invoking this Court’s authority, and also threatening Thomson Reuters with a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. [ 25 ] Mr. Tican has, repeatedly, in the materials placed before this Court, claimed to hold Canadian law, the Court and its processes, staff, clerks, judges, and justices in the highest light and regard. Mr. Tican has stressed his sophisticated understanding of Canadian law.

He is not some ordinary layperson, but instead someone who should be qualified and recognized as having special legal knowledge and professionalism, albeit he is not a registered lawyer. Mr. Tican says that is why he is a suitable litigation representative. He knows and respects the law. [ 26 ] Mr. Tican’s blatant attempt to usurp the Court’s authority for deceptive, ulterior purposes makes Mr. Tican’s character, as a Court participant, clear. I also draw the inference that Mr. Tican’s attempt to conceal his abusive litigation activities relates to Mr. Tican’s marketing law-related and Court services to others.

What Mr. Tican is attempting to do is limit Internet searches of his name that disclose Mr. Tican’s long-standing pattern of abusive litigation conduct. Mr. Tican is trying to cover up his bad litigation record, so as to pursue his business as an unlicenced legal representative/agent. [ 27 ] Beyond this, what Mr. Tican has done is very serious misconduct.

This Court has a broad inherent jurisdiction to control its processes ( R v Cunningham , 2010 SCC 10 at para 10 ; I H Jacob, “The Inherent Jurisdiction of the Court” (1970), 23 Curr Legal Probs 23 at 27-28), and to enforce its authority via its civil and criminal contempt jurisdictions. [ 28 ] Furthermore, the Legislature in Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 s 55 has made it an offence to use “... any court process ... in

any manner likely or intended to deceive any other person ...”: Any person using any court process or form or any process or form similar to it in any manner likely or intended to deceive any other person is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not less than $100 and not more than $500 or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or to both. What Mr. Tican has done appears to offend Judicature Act s 55. [ 29 ] Initiating a prosecution pursuant to Judicature Act s 55 is the jurisdiction of Alberta, rather than the Court.

However, the fact that the Legislature has identified activities of this kind is a policy indication that this kind of illegal activity is serious misconduct. In the present context, potential steps by this Court in response to Mr. Tican claiming to enforce a fictitious Order of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta include: 1) a costs award against Mr.

Tican; 2) a r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court penalty award; 3) security for costs in the implicated Tican v Alamgir , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2101 05814 proceeding; or 4) termination of the implicated Tican v Alamgir , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2101 05814 proceeding because Mr. Tican’s conduct of that proceeding is an abuse of court. [ 30 ] Mr. Tican is instructed to provide written submissions by June 16, 2023 as to: 1) whether Mr.

Tican should be subject to Court-imposed steps in response to his attempt to manipulate and coerce Thomson Reuters on the basis of a non-existent Order of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta; and 2) what disciplinary and/or punitive step(

s) are appropriate in this instance. The Defendants in the Tican v Alamgir Action No. 2101 05814, and Alberta, may also make submissions with the same deadline. [ 31 ] The Court will issue a written decision, after the Court has received these materials, and the June 16, 2023 deadline has passed. V. Court Access Gatekeeping Pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 [ 32 ] In Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 , Slatter JA determined the Judicature Act s 23.1 authority of this Court to initiate Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Court access gatekeeping processes on the Court’s own motion.

Compliant with Jonsson v Lymer , when this Court identifies a candidate for Court access gatekeeping, the Court instead requests that parties to litigation and Alberta initiate a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process, e.g., Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc , 2021 ABQB 286 ; Feeney v TD General Insurance Company , 2021 ABQB 604 ; Wu v Canada (Attorney General) , 2021 ABQB 749 ; Sun v Allwest Insurance Services Ltd , 2022 ABQB 18 ; Anderson (Re) , 2022 ABQB 35 ; Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 317 ; Christofi v Newcombe , 2022 ABQB 429 ; Wolf v Oasis Mobile Home Park , 2022 ABQB 529 . [ 33 ] Mr.

Tican’s problematic litigation activities are documented in Tican ABKB #1 , Tican #2 , Tican #3 , and this Memorandum of Decision. The Court of Appeal of Alberta has confirmed those findings: Tican ABCA #1 . Of particular relevance is that Mr. Tican is already subject to Court access gatekeeping as a vexatious litigant: Tican ABCA #1 .

That creates a presumption that expanded and/or additional prospective litigation management is appropriate, where further problematic conduct is identified: Canada v Olumide , 2017 FCA 42 at para 37 ; Hill v Bundon , 2018 ABQB 506 at para 79 ; Peters v Keef , 2019 ABQB 85 at para 17 ; Feeney v TD General Insurance Company , 2021 ABQB 947 , aff’d 2022 ABCA 118 . [ 34 ] I invite Alberta to initiate a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application to impose Court access gatekeeping of Mr. Tican before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta.

I request that Alberta indicate whether it will pursue a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 application in relation to Mr. Tican by June 30, 2023. I also direct the continuation of Tican ABKB #1 interim Court access restrictions, now confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Alberta, on Mr. Tican’s activity before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, and will continue until the completion of any Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 processes against Mr. Tican. VI. Conclusion [ 35 ] This Court has previously recommended Mr. Tican obtain professional legal assistance from a lawyer: Tican ABKB #1 at para 73 ; Tican ABKB #3 at para 52 . Mr.

Tican should now immediately retain counsel. He faces potential sanctions for his actions related to this Court. [ 36 ] I direct the Clerk of the Court to place a copy of this Memorandum of Decision on the following files: • Tican v Maricic , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 1901 10218 • Tican v McGregor , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 1901 18482

• Tican v High Tech Civil Enforcement Corp , Court of King’s Bench Action No. 2101 09044 • Tician v Mcdougall , Court of King’s Bench Action No. 2101 11368 • Tician v Westcorp Property Management , Court of King’s Bench Action No. 2101 11828 • Tican v McGregor , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2101 12033 • Tican v Das Legal Protection Inc , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2101 13525 • Tician v MC Lakeside Properties , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2101 15867 • Tican v Savulescu , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2201 09542 • Tican v 504147 Alberta Ltd , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2201 06365 • Tican v Maricic , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2201 07231 • R v Cartwright , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 220790554S1 • LPB Marketing v Qcom College of Technologies Inc. , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2201 10445 The Clerk of the Court shall also serve a copy of this Memorandum of Decision to all the responding and/or defending parties in the above listed matters. [ 37 ] I direct that a copy of this Memorandum of Decision is provided to Alberta and the Law Society of Alberta. [ 38 ] Mr.

Tican will be served this Memorandum of Decision to the email address on his January 8, 2023 Affidavit. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 30 th day of May, 2023. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances by Written Submissions Adrian Tican Self-represented Litigant _______________________________________________________ Corrigendum of the Memorandum of Decision of The Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ Changes reflected to indicate proper court file number for Tican v Savulescu , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2201 09542.