Tican v Alamgir, 2022 ABKB 843

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Tican v Alamgir, 2022 ABKB 843 Date: 20221214 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 Defendant

_______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] Adrian Tican [Mr. Tican] is a person who has engaged in much litigation activity in Alberta. Since 2007, Mr. Tican has commenced 69 civil proceedings at the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. In 2017, Mr.

Tican voluntarily agreed to be subject to court access gatekeeping, what is sometimes called a “vexatious litigant order”, that imposed a leave to file requirement for any proceedings related to the Alberta Human Rights Commission and its personnel: Alberta Human Rights Commission v Tican (28 August 2017), Calgary 1701 10524 (Alta QB). [ 2 ] On August 18, 2022, Counsel for the Defendants in two lawsuits filed by Mr. Tican, Tican v Amalgir , Docket No. 2001 14447 [ Doctor Action #1 ] and Tican v Amalgir , Docket No. 2101 05814 [ Doctor Action #2 ], referred Mr.

Tican’s Doctor Actions Statements of Claims for review as candidate Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings [AVAPs] pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] paragraph 6. I am designated to receive and review potential CPN7 processes in Southern Alberta. [ 3 ] After review of Mr. Tican’s litigation, I concluded in a decision reported as Tican v Alamgir , 2022 ABKB 626 [ Tican #1 ] that Mr. Tican had engaged in a broad spectrum of problematic conduct.

Tican #1 thus responded to the Doctors Actions CPN7 referral, but also addressed a number of additional issues, and imposed interim litigation and litigant management steps. The following summarizes Tican #1 , and steps and events that have occurred in the post- Tican #1 interim: A. Unpaid Filing Fees [ 4 ] Mr. Tican had initiated at least 23 Alberta Court of King’s Bench lawsuits and litigation steps without paying requires filing fees. Mr.

Tican achieved this by illegally obtaining fee waivers, when those fee waivers were prohibited by a Ministerial Order issued by the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General: Tican #1 at paras 9-11 . In Tican #1 , I set in place a process for the Clerk of the Court to determine in what files Mr. Tican had unpaid filing fees, and the total of those unpaid fees: Tican #1 at paras 19-22 . Until those fees were paid, the associated proceedings were stayed. [ 5 ] Mr. Tican then had 28 days to pay those outstanding filing fees with a bank draft or cash, otherwise the related filings/proceedings would be struck out.

That payment requirement was imposed because Mr. Tican had a repeated pattern of making credit card payments to the Court and Transcript Services, then cancelling those payments. [ 6 ] The Court on October 13, 2022 received payment by bank draft from Mr. Tican of the outstanding filing fees. While that lifted the stay on the proceedings where no filing fee had been paid, matters initiated by Mr. Tican remain stayed because Mr. Tican was also made subject to interim court access gatekeeping: Tican #1 at para 64 . B.

CPN7 of the Doctor Actions [ 7 ] In Tican #1 , I concluded that the CPN7 review of the Doctor Actions should be conducted in two parts. Mr. Tican had paid the filing fees for Doctor Action #1 , but not Doctor Action #2 . I, therefore, proceeded with a CPN7 review of Doctor Action #1 , only: Tican #1 at paras 23-39 .

I concluded that the Doctor Action #1 was prima facie an abuse of process on two separate bases: 1) the lawsuit was a prohibited duplicative proceeding, and 2) the Doctor Action #1 Statement of Claim has inadequate pleadings so that the Defendant and Court could not make a meaningful response. [ 8 ] Mr. Tican had two weeks to submit a Written Submission that rebutted those conclusions. No Written Submission was received, and so the Court issues a CPN7 step 2 Decision reported as Tican v Alamgir , 2022 ABKB 664 [ Tican #2 ]. Tican #2 struck out the Doctor Action #1 Statement of Claim as an abuse of court.

It subsequently came to light that Mr. Tican had corresponded with the Defendant - but not the Court - and by agreement discontinued the Doctor Action #1 on a no-costs basis. That came to light only after Tican #2 was issued.

[ 9 ] I find as fact and law that this discontinuance, outside the CPN7 process, does not rebut the illegal and abusive characteristics of the Doctor Action #1 Statement of Claim identified in Tican #1 . That finding may be relevant at a later point when evaluating whether Mr. Tican exhibits a broader abusive litigation pattern that warrants litigation and litigant management steps. [ 10 ] Since Mr. Tican has now paid the filing fee for the Doctor Action #2 Statement of Claim, the Court will now proceed with a CPN7 review of that filing.

Due to my impending retirement, that CPN7 review will be conducted by Associate Chief Justice Nielsen. C. CPN7 of Tican v McDougall , Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket No. 2101 11368 [ 11 ] On September 28, 2022, the Court received a CPN7 referral by the Defendant in Tican v McDougall , Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket No. 2101 11368. This referral occurred after Tican #1 had been released, and the Tican v McDougall proceeding was already stayed because this lawsuit was one of the actions where Mr. Tican had not paid the filing fee.

The Court held the CPN7 referral in abeyance, in case the matter was struck out because Mr. Tican did not pay the required filing fee. [ 12 ] Mr. Tican has now paid that filing fee. The Court will, therefore, proceed with a CPN7 review of the Tican v McDougall proceeding. Given my impending retirement, that process will be conducted by Associate Chief Justice Nielsen. D. Adrian Tican’s Unauthorized Legal Representative Activities [ 13 ] During preparation of Tican #1 , the Court became aware that Mr.

Tican appeared to be engaging in activities within the Alberta Court of King’s Bench that are restricted to lawyers, pursuant to the Legal Profession Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 and Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 . [ 14 ] As an interim step, in light of Mr. Tican’s apparently engaged in the unlicenced practice of law, the Court imposed interim restrictions on Mr. Tican’s activities at the Alberta Court of King’s Bench: 1. Adrian Tican is prohibited from acting as a litigation representative, in any form, before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. 2.

Adrian Tican is prohibited from preparing any document filed or otherwise submitted to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, except where Adrian Tican is a named party in the litigation. 3. Adrian Tican is prohibited from engaging in any activity with the Clerks of the Court of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, except where Adrian Tican is a named litigant in the proceeding in question. 4. For greater clarity, these prohibitions include submitting documents, filing materials, and making any form of payment. [ Tican #1 at para 44 .] [ 15 ] Mr.

Tican was instructed to provide up to ten pages of materials to explain why Mr. Tican is a valid litigation representative and/or agent in proceedings before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench: Tican #1 at para 45 . Mr. Tican was also instructed to identify any post-2017 document that Mr. Tican prepared for and/or filed at the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, where Mr. Tican was not a party to that litigation: Tican #1 at para 46 . Several proceedings that Mr. Tican appears to have improperly initiated were stayed.

I provided instructions to the initiating parties on how to properly engage with this Court. [ 16 ] The Court has received a response from Mr. Tican as to the unauthorized legal representation issue. Those submissions and the Court’s response are addressed in

Part II, below. E. Multiple Aliases [ 17 ] Mr. Tican has been using multiple identities in his filings: Tican #1 at para 51 . That has impeded the Court’s management of this litigant. In Tican #1 , I ordered that in any future communications and documents, Mr. Tican consistently self-identify as “Adrian Tican”. I also directed Mr. Tican to do this: Mr. Tican is also instructed to provide my office with an Affidavit and government issued identification documents that establish his legal name, by September 30, 2022. [ 18 ] The Court received an Affidavit of Mr. Tican dated September 27, 2022. My response to that Affidavit is in

part III, below. F. Abusive Interactions with the Clerks of the Court and Communications Structures [ 19 ] In Tican #1 at para 53 , I imposed interim communications restrictions to structure Mr. Tican’s problematic conduct and interactions with the Court Clerks. Mr. Tican in his response to his unauthorized litigation activities disputes the Clerks’ reports of Mr. Tican’s activities. I comment on that below in

part II, below. [ 20 ] The interim communications and interaction structure imposed in Tican #2 at paras 55-56 remain in effect. I note these steps do not affect Mr. Tican’s capacity to personally conduct litigation at the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, but simply structure how the steps and interactions that involve the Court will occur. I conclude those steps remain appropriate, in response to Mr. Tican’s established bad litigation conduct patterns.

G. Expanded Prospective Litigant Management Steps [ 21 ] In Tican #1 at paras 57-64 , I concluded that Mr. Tican’s existing court access gatekeeping restrictions, and Mr. Tican’s patterns of problematic litigation conduct, warrant the Court investigating whether or not indefinite litigation and litigant management steps are appropriate to manage Mr. Tican and his activities. In his submissions in response to his unauthorized litigation, Mr. Tican rejects these steps.

He says that if the Court believes he requires management, then his litigation should be subject to case management. [ 22 ] I disagree, and instead continue the interim court access gatekeeping imposed in Tican #1 at para 64 . As I said in Tican #1 , Mr. Tican’s litigation record speaks for itself. Therefore, the current interim court access restrictions will continue until the Court completes the two outstanding CPN7 processes, and may be further extended, if appropriate. H. Appeal [ 23 ] Mr. Tican has sought leave to appeal Tican #1 : Tican v Alamgir , Alberta Court of Appeal Docket No. 2201 0239AC.

From my review of that Application, Mr. Tican appears to challenge the entire Tican #1 Decision. The Docket No. 2201 0239AC leave to appeal Application was set to be heard on November 17, 2022; however, my understanding is that Mr. Tican did not comply with that Court’s documentary and filing requirements, and no new hearing date has been scheduled. I. Conclusion [ 24 ] I now proceed to evaluate the questions of Mr. Tican’s representation of persons at the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, and Mr. Tican’s use of multiple aliases. II. Adrian Tican Unauthorized Legal Representative Activities A. Mr.

Tican’s Submissions [ 25 ] Mr. Tican in his written submission first states that he is not a lawyer, nor has he claimed to be a lawyer. He also denies having attempted to be a litigation representative and/or agent for any other person in Alberta Court of King’s Bench proceedings. [ 26 ] However, Mr. Tican does disclose that he is an active litigation representative “... in provincial traffic court.” As I understand Mr.

Tican’s explanation, he says that when one of the traffic matters he “handles” appears in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, then the litigant would self-represent, or a lawyer would be “assigned” for “handling”. Mr. Tican stresses: “... I emphasize that I do not consider myself to be and do not wish to be an authorized representative or agent to act for anyone in the KB ...” [emphasis in original], and that “... I have never nor will I ever appear in KB to make submissions on [the behalf of others] before KB judges”. [ 27 ] Then Mr.

Tican continues to argue that the rules for court appearances by non-lawyers have recently changed. Mr. Tican reports that a non-lawyer person named “Susan Seamans” was given permission in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench and Alberta Court of Appeal to represent an unnamed corporation, where: ... such corporation client of hers to which Ms. Seamans is not an owner or president of, but merely an agent of, and who she prepared legal documents on behalf of and filed for in and at such superior court level(s) ... Mr. Tican continues to explain that Ms.

Seamans is respected by court staff, and that her appearances were proper and legal because the regulations on non-lawyer appearances have “... been ‘relaxed’ or ‘discretionary’ as was understood ...”. [ 28 ] As for the problematic filings identified in Tican #1 at paras 41-42 , in one instance, with R v Cartwright , Docket No. 22079055451, Mr. Tican denies he filed the document in question. His signature is not found on that document, and his name is only included in that document in reference to the Provincial Court of Alberta proceeding.

With the second identified action, LPB Marketing v Qcom College of Technologies Inc. , Docket No. 2201 10445 Action, Mr. Tican’s materials include an undated handwritten note, apparently from Ligaya Balatong, a co-Plaintiff, saying she is the author of the Statement of Claim in that matter. Mr. Tican appears in this instance to acknowledge he did file this document, but says there is nothing extraordinary about that. Friends, relatives, and “court runners” often file other persons documents. Mr. Tican says no filing-related steps are required for him.

He should not be held accountable for making improper fee waivers when those “... were thoroughly reviewed and approved, often by senior clerks and management, who were professionally trained ...”. [ 29 ] Mr. Tican stresses his deep respect for the Court Clerks. Mr. Tican states he would never engage in “clerk shopping”, but instead he would always follow Court Clerk instructions, they are the “... professional expert gatekeepers ...”. [ 30 ] Mr. Tican says there are no other matters where he was involved in filing documents of third-parties at the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.

He stresses that he has not appeared in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench as an agent, not does he intend to do so. B. Analysis [ 31 ] This Court has a broad and flexible inherent jurisdiction discretion to control its processes, so that the Court may operate effectively to achieve its functions: 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. That includes the authority to remove lawyers, where appropriate: MacDonald Estate v Martin, (SCC), [1990] 3 SCR 1235 at 1245. [32] That same authority applies to non-lawyer representatives and agents.

While the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled in Jonssonv Lymer, 2020 ABCA 167 that persons in Alberta have an absolute right to self-represent, the law in Canada is clear that a Court does notmerely have the authority to restrict and control who acts as a legal representative of any type, but, further, that the Court has a positiveobligation to ensure persons appearing before the Court are “... properly represented ...”, and “... to maintain the rule of law and theintegrity of the court generally ...”: R v Dick, 2002 BCCA 27, para 7. [33] Mr. Tican’s litigation record is highly problematic.

He is already the subject of court access gatekeeping steps, and thatcreates a presumption in favour of parallel steps, where appropriate: Tican #1 at paras 57-60. Tican #1 at para 62 conducts a review ofMr. Tican’s prior completed proceedings. Mr. Tican’s litigation is generally unsuccessful, and I note a concerning fact that Mr. Ticaninitiates many proceedings that are then abandoned, particularly his appeals. Mr. Tican’s pattern of problematic litigation continues tothe present, see Tican #2 for example. Mr.

Tican cannot claim to have “turned over a new leaf”. [34] As a general point of law, I concluded in Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 904-912,that persons subject to court access gatekeeping are not appropriate litigation representatives. But the question of whether Mr.

Ticanshould or should not be permitted to operate as a litigation representative, or to file documents for third parties at the Alberta Court ofKing’s Bench, or to prepare materials for use by third parties in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, dissolves primarily down to Mr.Tican’s interaction and conduct with the Alberta Court of King’s Bench Clerks. [35] Mr. Tican’s materials appear to claim that the Court’s staff has misinformed me as to Mr. Tican’s conduct. For example, heappears to claim the Clerks’ report that Mr. Tican engages in “clerk shopping” (Tican #1 at para 53) is false.

He also denies he filed R vCartwright, Docket No. 22079055451, and, so again, the Clerks must have misinformed me. Bluntly, I accept that the informationprovided to me by this Court’s frontline staff is reliable and accurate. Second, I note that Mr. Tican does not comment upon his pattern ofpaying for Court and transcript fees by credit card, then reversing the charges for those services. That behaviour, on its own, is a verystrong basis to conclude that Mr. Tican is not a suitable person to interact with this Court and its staff, on behalf of any other person. [36] Third, Mr.

Tican’s claims concerning the R v Cartwright, Docket No. 22079055451 and PB Marketing v Qcom College ofTechnologies Inc., Docket No. 2201 10445 proceedings are not supported by any admissible evidence. I note with interest that Ms.Balatong’s handwritten note is addressed “To: whom it may concern”, and not to myself. That is unanticipated, given I would havethought that Ms. Balatong should have been only asked to prepare this item in response to my very specific concerns raised in Tican #1 atparas 42, 47-48. In any case, Ms.

Balatong’s handwritten note is inadmissible since that does not take the form of an affidavit. I wouldexpert Mr. Tican would have been aware of that, since he apparently operates as a litigation representative in the Provincial Court ofAlberta as a business. [37] As for the legal standard for non-lawyer agent representation in this Court, if there has been a “relaxation” of the rulesprohibiting non-lawyer representation, then that does not impact or affect this Court’s positive obligation to ensure abusive and/orunqualified parties are excluded from court representation activities.

As Chief Justice McLachlin observed in Trial Lawyers Associationof British Columbia v British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 at para 47, “[t]here is no constitutional right to bringfrivolous or vexatious cases ...”, and, if that is true for self-represented persons, that must equally be true for layperson litigationrepresentatives. [38] I also note that Mr. Tican was explicit in his submissions in response to Tican #1 that he has no intention of being a litigationrepresentative for other persons conducting litigation at the Alberta Court of King’s Bench.

He, therefore, loses nothing by myformalizing the interim steps imposed in Tican #1 at para 44. Mr. Tican is only prohibited from something that he says he never does,nor would ever seek to do. [39] I, therefore, conclude that Mr. Tican should be, and therefore direct that he is permanently prohibited from the followingsteps: 1. Adrian Tican is prohibited from acting as a litigation representative, in any form, before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. 2.

Adrian Tican is prohibited from preparing any document filed or otherwise submitted to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench,except where Adrian Tican is a named party in the litigation. 3. Adrian Tican is prohibited from engaging in any activity with the Clerks of the Court of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench,except where Adrian Tican is a named litigant in the proceeding in question. 4.

For greater clarity, these prohibitions include submitting documents, filing materials, and making any form of payment. [40] As for the two third-party proceedings addressed in Tican #1 at paras 47-48, both matters remain stayed until the stepsindicated in Tican #1 are completed. Specifically, I confirm to Ms. Balatong that if she seeks to resume the LPB Marketing v QcomCollege of Technologies Inc., Docket No. 2201 10445 Action, she will need to take the steps indicated in Tican #1 at para 47. III. Adrian Tican Multiple Aliases [41] As indicated above, Mr.

Tican provided to my office an Affidavit in response to my requirement to identify Mr. Tican’s legalname. Mr. Tican was instructed to provide “government issued identification documents that establish his legal name”. [42] Notably, and surprisingly, this Affidavit does not actually depose to what is Mr. Tican’s actual legal name. Instead, paragraph2, reads: “The purpose of this document is to answer your request to the best of my understanding.” One would think that deposing as to

your actual legal name would at least be a component of that Affidavit, “to the best of my understanding.” [ 43 ] What is attached to the Affidavit is a photocopy of two redacted documents, 1) an Alberta Personal Health Card for “Adrian Tican”, and a Human Resources Development Canada Social Insurance Number card for “Adrian Tican”. [ 44 ] Neither of these items are a government issued identification document. I also draw a negative inference from the fact that Mr. Tican’s Affidavit does not even depose to his legal name, despite that being the sole purpose for the Court to request that document.

As such, I conclude Mr. Tican has not satisfied Tican #1 at para 51 . [ 45 ] Mr. Tican is ordered, by January 16, 2023, to submit to the office of Associate Chief Justice Nielsen an Affidavit that: 1. Mr. Tican deposes as to his legal name, and 2. Mr. Tican provides the Court with:

a) an unredacted copy of his birth certificate, and

b) an unredacted copy of a government issued photograph ID, such as a driver’s licence, or the page of a government-issued passport that shows his photograph and full name. IV. Conclusion [ 46 ] The interim litigation representation restrictions imposed on Mr. Tican in Tican #1 are made permanent. Mr. Tican is required to provide a second affidavit to establish his correct legal identity. [ 47 ] The Doctor Action #2 and Tican v McDougall CPN7 referrals will be addressed by Associate Chief Justice Nielsen. [ 48 ] The interim court access gatekeeping imposed on Mr.

Tican in Tican #1 continues. [ 49 ] A copy of this Decision and its corresponding Order shall be placed by the Clerks of the Court on the following files: • Tican v Maricic , Calgary 1901 10218 (Alta QB) • Tican v McGregor , Calgary 1901 18482 (Alta QB) • Tican v High Tech Civil Enforcement Corp , Calgary 2101 09044 (Alta QB) • Tician v Mcdougall , Calgary 2101 11368 (Alta QB) • Tician v Westcorp Property Management , Calgary 2101 11828 (Alta QB) • Tican v McGregor , Calgary 2101 12033 (Alta QB) • Tican v Das Legal Protection Inc , Calgary 2101 13525 (Alta QB) • Tician v MC Lakeside Properties , Calgary 2101 15867 (Alta QB) • Tican v Savulescu , Calgary 2201 07542 (Alta QB) • Tican v 504147 Alberta Ltd , Calgary 2201 06365 (Alta QB) • Tican v Maricic , Calgary 2201 07231 (Alta QB) • R v Cartwright , Calgary 22079055451 (Alta QB) • LPB Marketing v Qcom College of Technologies Inc. , Calgary 2201 10445 (Alta QB) [ 50 ] Mindful of my obligations to provide information to self-represented persons ( Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 ), such as Mr.

Tican, concerning their litigation options, if Mr. Tican disagrees with this Decision, then his remedy is an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 51 ] The Court will prepare the Order giving effect to this Decision. Mr. Tican’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision and the corresponding Order shall be served on Mr. Tican to the email addresses on Mr. Tican’s filings. [ 52 ] At various points in Mr. Tican’s materials, he says that if I am unsatisfied with his explanations, then I should tell him that, so that he can retain a lawyer and make further submissions.

That is not how things work. Mr. Tican does not get “do overs”. No litigants are entitled to that treatment. In Tican #1 at para 73 , I very strongly recommended that Mr. Tican retain counsel. He apparently deals with lawyers as a part of his Alberta Provincial Court traffic ticket agent business, so I imagine he should know lawyers who can assist him. I, again, recommend Mr. Tican take that step, immediately. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 14 th day of December, 2022.

J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Adrian Tican Self-represented Litigant