Chinedu Gideon Ubah Proposed Applicant - v. -, 2023 ABKB 389

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Ubah v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta, 2023 ABKB 389 Date: 20230626 Dockets: 1801 17978 Registry: Calgary Between: Chinedu Gideon Ubah Proposed Applicant - and - Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) Proposed Respondent _______________________________________________________ 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). Succinctly, the proposed Application seeks: “An order setting aside decision/ order dated January 15, 2020 and reported as Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2020 ABQB 40 ” (sic).

Briefly, in Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2020 ABQB 40 ( Ubah #6 ), Associate Chief Justice Rooke granted an application by the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (“APEGA”) that Mr. Ubah may not initiate complaints under the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act , RSA 2000, c E-11 without an Order granting leave by the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the Court of King’s (then Queen’

s) Bench of Alberta, or his or her designate. Essentially, Mr. Ubah could not initiate future APEGA complaints except when the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta had given Mr. Ubah prior permission to do so. [ 3 ] It appears Mr. Ubah did not appeal the Ubah #6 Memorandum of Decision: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2021 ABCA 5 at para 6 . [ 4 ] 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 to the critical question of whether Mr. Ubah has established a reasonable basis to set aside the APEGA tribunal access gatekeeping currently in place. [ 5 ] The unappealed Ubah #6 decision concluded that Mr. Ubah’s bad litigation conduct in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta was paralleled by the same kind of aggressive, repeated, persistent professional complaint misbehaviour also being experienced by APEGA: para 9. Mr. Ubah had weaponized APEGA complaint processes to attack persons he was also suing.

In that context, the Court engaged its inherent jurisdiction to manage Mr. Ubah’s misconduct before that Tribunal. [ 6 ] Mr. Ubah needs to establish a reasonable basis ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at para 19 , 26, aff’d 2018 ABCA 111 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019)) for this Court to conclude that the circumstances that led to the Ubah #6 tribunal access gatekeeping steps no longer exist. Succinctly, that would be for Mr. Ubah to present evidence he no longer will misuse and abuse the APEGA complaint apparatus. While Mr.

Ubah’s proposed Application is accompanied by an Affidavit affirmed on June 1, 2023, that Affidavit provides no information to establish that tribunal access gatekeeping no longer remains necessary to manage Mr. Ubah. Instead, the Affidavit only contains allegations of bad conduct by APEGA staff and supposed process irregularities. [ 7 ] Mr. Ubah’s dispute related misconduct continues to the present. Mr. Ubah’s repeated, aggressive, relentless abusive litigation has escalated since 2020, when Ubah #6 issued, reviewed in Ubah v Ubah , 2022 ABKB 753 at paras 13-18 .

Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Hayden v Hayden , 2022 ABKB 648 at paras 13-14 grouped Mr. Ubah with a number of other abusive litigants that operate at the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, who basically are unmanageable, under Alberta law: ... I have exhausted the Court’s mechanisms to manage Ms. Hayden, as they were defined and limited by the Alberta Court of Appeal in Jonsson v Lymer , 2020 ABCA 167 . ... Instead, predictably, Ms. Hayden will take additional future steps to achieve her intended objectives: to do whatever she wants, however she wants it.

This ridiculous farcical festival will now continue to cycle over and over, around and around, with no end in sight. And Ms. Hayden is far from unique. Others also operate the same way, ignoring court procedure, resisting, or simply defying, any attempt at management, such as Chinedu Gideon Ubah ... and many more. They do whatever they want, squander court resources, harass and threaten staff, and incrementally erode the operation of courts and tribunals, often across many jurisdictions. ... I do not see that as “access to justice”.

But such is the state of things in Alberta courts, because that is “the law”. [ 8 ] In short, Mr. Ubah has provided no reasonable basis to conclude that the tribunal access gatekeeping imposed in Ubah #6 is no longer required. Instead, Mr. Ubah’s litigation record establishes the exact opposite. The proposed Application is rejected. That is final.

No further leave requests to revise or set aside the Ubah #6 APEGA tribunal access restrictions will be accepted: Ubah #16 at para 26(5). [ 9 ] 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. If Mr.

Ubah wants to challenge the steps imposed in Ubah #6 on a factual or legal basis, that would be by an appeal to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. [ 10 ] 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 APEGA and Counsel for 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