Liu v Kadiri, 2023 ABKB 628

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Liu v Kadiri, 2023 ABKB 628 Date: 20231107 Docket: 2303 14065 Registry: Edmonton Between: Stephen Chu Liu Applicant - and - Idris Kadiri Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On August 3, 2023, Stephen Chu Liu (Mr. Liu) filed an Originating Application that named Idris Kadiri (Mr. Kadiri) as the Respondent (the Application). The body of the Application reads: Basis for this Claim: 1. Mr.

Idris Kadiri the Respondent has filed 2 lawsuits directly against me, 1 lawsuit indirectly against me and 1 lawsuit that was rejected by the court counter clerk Mr. Patrick Sheehan. Mr. Kadiri also file 4 lawsuits against current and past board members of Winston Arms Condominium Association which was also rejected by the court counter clerk Mr. Patrick Sheehan. So far, only 2 of

lawsuits that have been heard in court. Both cases were dismissed. He is currently appealing these court cases. The details of these are described in my Affidavit attached. All these lawsuits were filed within a period of approximately 1 year. I had to attend Court 7 times within a period approximately 1 year. 2. Mr. Kadiri was granted a waiver of filing fees by the Court. This allows him to file application and appeals at no cost to him. 3. Mr. Kadiri has weaponized the Court system to carry out his personal Vendetta and frivolously take up the Court's time when there's a backlog of legitimate Court cases.

Remedy sought: 4. For this Court to declare Mr. Kadiri a Vexatious Litigant and to not allow him to file any further Applications. 5. For this Court to determine if Mr. Kadiri had committed Perjury, and if he did, to impose the proper penalty on him. 6. For this Court to award costs of this application. 7. For this Court to award punitive damages as it sees fit. Affidavit or other evidence to be used in support of this application: 8. Affidavit attached Applicable Acts and regulations: [ 2 ] The Application was accompanied by a 177-page Affidavit of Mr. Liu sworn on August 3, 2023.

Without at this point going into unnecessary detail, the Affidavit reports on a condominium-related dispute between Mr. Kadiri and Mr. Liu, persons living in the condominium complex, and condominium board members. I note it appears that Mr.

Kadiri disputes the validity of the condominium board and has taken steps on his own in relation to that. [ 3 ] The Application and two related matters (one as an add-on): • Idris Kadiri v Andrea Crier - Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2303 00756; and • Idris Kadiri v Chris Claridge & Liu Stephen Chu - Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2303 11632; were scheduled for Justice Chambers on September 20, 2023, before Kraus J.

A further related matter was identified during submissions: Idris Kadiri v Aleksandra Kozicka - Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2303 02015. [ 4 ] Justice Kraus received submissions from Mr. Liu, Mr. Kadiri, and Ms. Kozicka, who were all unrepresented. At that point Kraus J adjourned the Action No. 2303 00756, Action No. 2303 11632, and Action No. 2303 14065 proceedings sine die since the scope and number of applications and appeals in these interrelated matters were incompatible with being resolved in Justice Chambers. Further, apparently not all material and information was before the Court.

Justice Kraus noted the multiplicity of interrelated litigation, and instructed the Court would provide directions so this litigation may proceed in a more effective manner. Justice Kraus instructed that further communications with the Court would be conducted by email. [ 5 ] I have now taken jurisdiction over this process as an Administrative Justice who is responsible for managing problematic litigation and litigants.

That includes that I am the Administrative Justice who usually conducts “vexatious litigant” proceedings. [ 6 ] The Application is not compatible with the usual process applied by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta to conduct proceedings of this kind. First, the Court of Appeal of Alberta ruled in Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 that this Court in almost all circumstances may only impose court access gatekeeping pursuant to Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1. Mr. Liu’s Application does not appear to be made according to that legislation.

Any such Application must comply with the notice to the Minister requirement in Judicature Act s 23.1(1). Furthermore, the Court’s usual practice is to conduct Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 processes on a document-only basis, without court hearings: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at para 565 . [ 7 ] I have reviewed the extensive documentation provided by Mr. Liu, relevant docket records, and other filings in the Action No. 2303 00756, Action No. 2303 11632, and Action No. 2303 14065 proceedings.

Since litigation and litigant management steps are now at an early stage, and there is broad disagreement on points of law and fact, I will restrict my comments about and evaluation of Mr. Kadiri’s litigation and conduct. However, after review of the records of the Kadiri proceedings, I am satisfied that there is a prima facie basis to proceed with a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process. [ 8 ] I give instructions pursuant to my obligations set out in Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 to provide information to self- represented persons concerning their litigation.

The next step is to organize a process moving forward that complies with legislation, binding appellate authority, and this Court’s processes: 1. Mr. Liu shall by December 11, 2023 file with the Court in Action No. 2303 14065:

a) a new Application pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 to initiate a process to impose court access restrictions on Mr. Kadiri;

b) a supporting written argument for why Mr. Kadiri should be subject to court access restrictions pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1, and that indicates the appropriate scope of those court access restrictions; and

c) affidavit evidence in support of that Application, which may include the August 3, 2023 Affidavit, and other Affidavits filed in other related matters.

2. Mr. Liu shall by December 11, 2023 give Notice to the Minister pursuant to Judicature Act s 23.1(1), including his Application materials set out in paragraph 8(1) above. 3. Mr. Liu shall also by December 11, 2023 deliver the materials set out in paragraph 8(1) above to:

a) my office, “Attention: Associate Chief Justice Nielsen”;

b) Mr. Kadiri; and

c) the Defendants in the Action No. 2303 00756, Action No. 2303 11632, and Action No. 2303 14065 proceedings. 4. Mr. Kadiri shall by January 12, 2024:

a) file with the Court in Action No. 2303 14065 written argument and affidavit evidence, if any, in response to Mr. Liu’s Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application;

b) deliver that written argument and affidavit evidence, if any, to: (i.) my office, “Attention: Associate Chief Justice Nielsen”; (ii.) Mr. Liu; and (iii.) the Defendants in the Action No. 2303 00756, Action No. 2303 11632, and Action No. 2303 14065 proceedings. 5. If any of the Defendants in the Action No. 2303 00756, Action No. 2303 11632, and Action No. 2303 14065 proceedings wish to participate in Mr. Liu’s Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application, then they shall by January 12, 2024:

a) file with the Court in Action No. 2303 14065 written argument and affidavit evidence, if any, in response to Mr. Liu’s Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application; and

b) deliver that written argument and affidavit evidence, if any, to: (i.) my office, “Attention: Associate Chief Justice Nielsen”; (ii) Mr. Liu; (iii.) Mr. Kadiri; and (iv.) the other Defendants in the Action No. 2303 00756, Action No. 2303 11632, and Action No. 2303 14065 proceedings. [ 9 ] Upon completion of this process the Court will issue a written judgment that determines whether Mr. Kadiri should be subject to indefinite court access restrictions, pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1. [ 10 ] For clarity, this process will not evaluate Mr. Liu’s allegation that Mr.

Kadiri has engaged in perjury, or whether Mr. Kadiri should be liable to pay punitive damages. I am not deciding these aspects of the Application at this point. The Court will return to these claims after the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process completes, if appropriate. [ 11 ] From my review of the litigation to date, and information in Mr. Liu’s Affidavit, I conclude that Mr.

Kadiri should be subject to interim court access restrictions before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta that will continue until the completion of Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process, or January 12, 2024, whichever is later. [ 12 ] To ensure that Mr. Kadiri is clear on this point, these interim court access restrictions mean that: 1) Any litigation initiated by Mr. Kadiri in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta is stayed on an interim basis. No further steps will occur in this litigation, except with permission – “leave” – of myself or my designate; 2) Mr.

Kadiri may not initiate any new litigation proceedings or steps in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta except with leave of myself or my designate. That leave requirement does not apply to:

a) any criminal proceedings in which Mr. Kadiri is an accused person or appellant;

b) Mr. Kadiri’s written submissions and affidavit evidence, in the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process set out above; and

c) proceedings in other courts. [ 13 ] The Court will prepare and file the Order imposing interim court access restrictions on Mr. Kadiri. Approval of that Order by parties in the involved litigation is dispensed with pursuant to the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 . Mr. Kadiri should carefully review the instructions in that Order before he seeks leave to initiate or continue litigation. [ 14 ] At present all the participants in this litigation are self-represented. I very strongly recommend that Mr. Liu and Mr.

Kadiri obtain professional legal assistance in relation to the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application. This process requires detailed evidence, and the evolving rules and principles that apply when this Court engages in a Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 analysis are set in a number of different Alberta Court decisions. Furthermore, the law in relation to court access restrictions is sometimes very different between jurisdictions in Canada

[ 15 ] This Memorandum of Decision and the Interim Court Access Restrictions Order will be served by email to the email addresses provided at the September 20, 2023 hearing: Mr. Liu - stephen.liu1818@gmail.com Mr. Kadiri - idrisoc@gmail.com Ms. Kozicka – ola.kozicka25@gmail.com Mr. Claridge - claridge999@yahoo.ca [ 16 ] Mindful of the Pintea v Johns instruction that Canadian judges shall provide information on litigation alternatives to self- represented litigants, such as Mr. Kadiri, if Mr.

Kadiri disagrees with the result of this Memorandum of Decision, he should seek a remedy with the Court of Appeal of Alberta. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 7 th day of November, 2023. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Stephen Chu Liu Self-represented Litigant Idris Kadiri Self-represented Litigant Ola Kozicka Self-represented Litigant