Chinedu Gideon Ubah Proposed Applicant - v. -, 2023 ABKB 390

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Ubah v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, 2023 ABKB 390 Date: 20230626 Dockets: 2301 08410 Registry: Calgary Between: Chinedu Gideon Ubah Proposed Applicant - and - Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), APEGA Investigative Committee, and APEGA Disciplinary Committee Proposed Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Chinedu Gideon Ubah (Mr.

Ubah) is an abusive litigant active in the Alberta and Federal Courts, which has led to Mr. Ubah being declared a vexatious litigant in both jurisdictions: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 692 at para 183 , leave to appeal denied in

part 2020 ABCA 209 , court access restrictions varied in

part 2021 ABCA 5 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 39757 (13 January 2021) ( Ubah #4 ); Canada (Attorney General) v Ubah , 2021 FC 1466 , aff’d 2023 FCA 26 . Recently, Mr. Ubah’s court access restrictions before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta were updated and revised in Memoranda of Decision reported as Ubah v Ubah , 2022 ABKB 753 ( Ubah #16 ) and Ubah v Ubah , 2022 ABKB 789 ( Ubah #17 ). These steps were subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Alberta: Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABCA 15 .

[ 2 ] My office has received by registered mail a package of materials from Mr. Ubah. The cover letter, dated June 2, 2023, indicates Mr. Ubah seeks to obtain permission of the Court - “leave” - to file a proposed Application titled “Originating Application” (proposed Application). The apparently relevant materials are found in an Affidavit affirmed by Mr. Ubah on June 1, 2023. That Affidavit describes interactions between Mr. Ubah and the disciplinary and administrative processes of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA). Mr. Ubah is an engineer licenced by APEGA.

The Affidavit provides a narrative of events from 2014 onwards. [ 3 ] Mr. Ubah describes how he made complaints against Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) and CNRL employees. Mr. Ubah describes what he says are irregularities and “tricks” by APEGA staff in response to Mr. Ubah’s complaints. Mr. Ubah’s complaints were rejected by APEGA. Mr. Ubah then alleges APEGA wrongfully sought and received tribunal access gatekeeping steps from the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta in response to Mr. Ubah’s complaints: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2020 ABQB 40 ( Ubah #6 ). Mr.

Ubah now alleges various irregularities in relation to Ubah #6 . [ 4 ] I pause at this point to note two facts. First, the Ubah #6 tribunal access restrictions were never appealed by Mr. Ubah, so that judgment, its findings of fact, and the resulting court-mediated process that screens APEGA from Mr. Ubah making APEGA complaints remain in effect. In the June 2, 2023 package, Mr. Ubah also sought permission to set aside the Ubah #6 tribunal access restrictions.

I rejected that step in a Memorandum of Decision reported as Ubah v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta , 2023 ABKB 389 because Mr. Ubah provided no information at all to establish he no longer should be prohibited from submitting complaints to APEGA. Instead, Mr. Ubah’s continuing litigation misconduct that extends to the present demonstrates Mr. Ubah’s professional complaint activities should be subject to gatekeeping processes. [ 5 ] Second, the complaints that Mr.

Ubah made about CNRL and various engineers to APEGA factually are the same allegations as were considered in multiple lawsuits that Mr. Ubah has conducted in the Court of Justice of Alberta (then the Provincial Court of Alberta), and then at the Court of King’s (then Queen’

s) Bench of Alberta, see Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 155 , action struck out as an abuse of court process, 2019 ABQB 347 ( Ubah #2 ). Thus, I have no basis to accept any of Mr. Ubah’s various claims that his complaints to APEGA have any merit, and I am bound by stare decisis . This Court has already ruled that Mr. Ubah’s complaints were baseless and part of a scheme to extort a settlement and favourable letters of reference from Mr. Ubah’s former employer. [ 6 ] Continuing with Mr. Ubah’s Affidavit narrative, Mr.

Ubah states in 2020 he personally became the target of an APEGA disciplinary process. That apparently still ongoing proceeding was, at least in part, in response to the rejected APEGA professional complaints that had been made by Mr. Ubah against CNRL and its employees. Mr. Ubah claims the disciplinary proceedings against him were baseless, in “... bad faith, retaliation and procedural fairness ...”. Mr. Ubah makes various allegations, claiming that APEGA did not follow proper procedure, interfered with Mr. Ubah calling witnesses, and alleging that an APEGA witness gave false evidence. Instead, Mr.

Ubah deposes he has determined that it was not APEGA that was conducting the disciplinary process, it was CNRL: “... It was CNRL, the people who were supposed to be under investigation that were running everything. ...”. [ 7 ] Next, Mr. Ubah claims that he was wrongly denied records that he requested from APEGA under the Personal Information Protection Act , SA 2003, c P-6.5 . That information did not actually relate to Mr. Ubah. Mr. Ubah complains that this rejection was unauthorized, and part of a broad scheme by APEGA to create false records that concealed Mr.

Ubah’s original complaints were never evaluated: ... There was no panel, there was no investigation and there was no committee. There were also lies propagated in the affidavit to Justice Rooke for the order of January 15, 2020, which he has not confessed to. Based on various claimed irregularities, Mr. Ubah denounces the APEGA processes as “corruption”, and “catch and kill”. [ 8 ] Mr. Ubah’s proposed Application restates some of these allegations in a

summary form: 1. The Flouting of the Engineering and Geoscientist Profession Act ( the Statue) by the Tribunal 2. The tribunal is carrying out its processing and hearing in bad-faith, bias, intimidation and retaliation. 3. The tribunal avoids complying with the EGP Act and carrying our proper investigation as mandated by the law and covering corrupt practices. ... 8. Discovery and confession that people were asked to pose as impostors by the Tribunal in fake investigations. 9.

The tribunal is conducing a Illegal - fake, intimidation and oppressive hearing under the EGP Act and refusal to provide evidence of legitimacy. ... (Sic.) [ 9 ] The proposed Application then seeks as remedies: 12. An Order compelling APEGA and/or APEGA IC to make a decision on the reconsideration request of the 5 complaints or conduct a proper investigation of those 5 complaints under the EGP Act, and stay of any other process until that is done. 13.

An Order compelling APEGA and/or APEGA IC to release the full member List of the APEGA IC constituted under the EGP Act during the timeline of the investigations, record of meeting and their votes to terminate the investigations and other decisions.

14. An Order compelling APEGA and/or APEGA IC to make full disclosures of all records including communication with CNRL concerning all complaints. 15. An Order compelling APEGA IC and IC Panel to provide evidence of that legitimacy if they exist. 16. An Order compelling APEGA and/or APEGA DC to release the full member List of the APEGA DC constituted under the EGP Act that selected the hearing panel, record of meeting and their votes in accepting the referral of the ongoing disciplinary hearing. 17. An Order compelling APEGA DC Panel to provide evidence of their legitimacy, if they exist. 18.

An order prohibiting the APEGA, its committees/panel and Board from discarding or departing from the provision of the EGP Act. 19. An Order compelling APEGA Registrar to comply with section 60(2) of the EGP Act and issued with charges Notice to attend and prohibit him from refusal of any such written request. 20. An Order prohibiting the APEGA DC hearing panel from interfering in the evidence process 21. An Order compelling APEGA to release Mr. Ross Plecash from the non-disclosure agreement he was made to sign so that he can answer all questions as a witness pursuant to section 59(2) of the EGP Act. 22.

An order for court in favor of the Applicant 23. Any other order the court considers just and appropriate (Sic.) [ 10 ] What Mr. Ubah thinks he is proposing with the proposed Application is difficult to understand. What is clear is that he disagrees with APEGA disciplinary procedure decisions and processes, and alleges that there were conspiratorial schemes between CNRL and the other targets of Mr. Ubah’s APEGA complaints, various lawyers, and APEGA itself. It appears to me that the proposed Application is best approached as a candidate judicial review of APEGA’s processes, though Mr.

Ubah has not called the proposed Application that. [ 11 ] The test for leave to file was recently summarized in Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 388 at paras 8-14 . In the interest of judicial economy, and to minimize the waste that Mr. Ubah has persistently imposed on this Court, I will focus my response on several factors that are fatal to Mr. Ubah’s candidate Application judicial review. [ 12 ] First, Mr. Ubah is clearly basing his claims on alleged facts that this Court has already considered and rejected. Mr.

Ubah’s allegations against CNRL and its employees have been rejected multiple times by Alberta Courts: Ubah #2 . There is therefore no reasonable basis for Mr. Ubah to challenge the APEGA processes and decision to reject his five complaints. I note that this Court in Ubah #6 accepted that Mr. Ubah misused APEGA complaint processes against CNRL and its employees. Ubah #6 was never appealed, so those findings stand, and are binding. [ 13 ] Second, at least some of what Mr. Ubah appears to be seeking is premature. As I understand his June 1, 2023 Affidavit, Mr.

Ubah complains about the APEGA disciplinary process against him that is currently underway, but where no final decision has issued. It is an abuse of process to pursue judicial proceedings without first exhausting the administrative regime: Al-Ghamdi v Alberta , 2017 ABQB 684 at paras 126-128 , aff’d 2020 ABCA 81 .

That rule applies to professional disciplinary proceedings, e.g., Doniger v Law Society of Alberta , 2021 ABQB 136 , action struck out as an abuse of court, 2021 ABQB 200 ; Freeman v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta , 2021 ABQB 556 , action struck out as an abuse of court, 2021 ABQB 682 . [ 14 ] Third, the onus is on Mr. Ubah to establish a reasonable basis for his proposed Application judicial review: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at para 19 , 26, aff’d 2018 ABCA 111 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019)).

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 , at paras 26-27. Mr. Ubah’s claims are in many instances nothing more than bald allegations, without any substance. Mr. Ubah has quoted from a Court transcript, but not provided that document. Mr. Ubah refers to many documents and emails, but those too are not attached to his June 1, 2023 Affidavit. It seems Mr. Ubah seeks that this Court make findings and/or take steps in relation to an ongoing APEGA disciplinary proceeding against Mr.

Ubah, but Mr. Ubah has not provided a documentary record for that proceeding, or a transcript of hearings, which is particularly serious since Mr. Ubah alleges the manner in which that proceeding has been conducted demonstrates bias, bad intent, and is procedurally unfair and illegal. However, without the evidence to substantiate these claims, this Court has no basis to conclude that any of Mr. Ubah’s allegations are valid. [ 15 ] Thus, I conclude that Mr. Ubah has not put his “best foot forward”, but, instead, failed to provide necessary information to evaluate his claims.

What has been provided is not an adequate basis to prove Mr. Ubah’s proposed Application judicial review should be granted leave. That means there are three independent bases on which I conclude Mr. Ubah’s proposed Application should be rejected. This decision is final. No further leave requests that challenge APEGA conduct during its rejection of Mr. Ubah’s complaints, APEGA’s application that led to Ubah #6 , and APEGA’s conduct of Mr.

Ubah’s disciplinary proceeding will be accepted: Ubah #16 at para 26(5). [ 16 ] Pursuant to my obligations to provide information to self-represented persons ( Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 ) concerning their litigation options, if Mr. Ubah disagrees with this Memorandum of Decision, then his remedy is to seek leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 17 ] This Memorandum of Decision and Order shall be served on Mr. Ubah to the email address on Mr. Ubah’s proposed Application: ubah.chinedu@yahoo.com . I instruct that a copy of this Memorandum of Decision is provided to CNRL, APEGA and

Counsel for CNRL and APEGA. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 26 th day of June, 2023. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances by submissions: Chinedu Gideon Ubah Self-represented Litigant