Ubah v Ubah, 2022 ABKB 753

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Ubah v Ubah, 2022 ABKB 753 Date: 20221114 Docket: FL01 37992; 4801 194949 Registry: Calgary Between: Chinedu Gideon Ubah Party - and - Geraldine Chiderah Ubah Party _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] This Decision is a general response to a disruptive and abusive actor who has been operating in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench for many years: Chinedu Gideon Ubah [Mr. Ubah]. Mr.

Ubah’s litigation record can only be described as dismal. In many senses, the Court’s attempts to manage Mr. Ubah and his incessant, repeated abuse of the Court’s processes has been a failure. That has led to

increasingly stringent litigation and litigant management steps. Mr. Ubah has, nevertheless, continued his bad conduct. To a disturbingdegree, Mr. Ubah does what Mr. Ubah wants, and often he gets away with it. That has led to much waste, harm to opposing litigants, andinterference with the operation of this Court and its staff, from Clerks through to judicial decision-makers. Mr. Ubah also targets judicialdecision makers via complaint processes, such as complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council [CJC]. When Mr.

Ubah did not havejudges removed and/or disciplined as he demanded, he then challenged that in Federal Court: Ubah v Canada (Attorney General ofCanada), Calgary T-991-21 (FC). [2] Mr. Ubah is simply relentless in his efforts to continue and expand his abusive litigation conduct. Mr. Ubah nevervoluntarily terminates his complaints. In fact, his most recent Alberta Court of Appeal proceeding (Ubah v Ubah, Calgary 2201-0210AC(Alta CA)) is explicitly Mr. Ubah attempting to challenge and reopen litigation from three years earlier, that Mr. Ubah had appealed tothe Supreme Court of Canada.

As Justice Antonio observed in Ubah v Ubah, 2022 ABCA 329 at para 10 [Ubah ABCA #5], Mr. Ubah’scontinued complaints target long settled issues. But that is how Mr. Ubah operates - he never lets go. A. The Ubah v Ubah Family Action [3] Two developments have led to this particular Decision. First, up until the present, Mr. Ubah’s litigation in the Alberta Courtof King’s Bench has centered on contract disputes, immigration proceedings, and Association of Professional Engineers andGeoscientists in Alberta professional discipline and status matters. However, in the past several months, Mr.

Ubah and his spouse,Geraldine Chiderah Ubah [Ms. Ubah], have separated. That led to a sequence of reciprocal litigation steps: restraining orders, allegationsof threats and abuse, and challenges on the status of two children of their relationship. [4] Mr. Ubah immediately expanded his pattern of bad litigation conduct into this new family law dispute: Ubah v Ubah, 2022ABQB 512 [Ubah #14]; Ubah v Ubah, 2022 ABQB 534 [Ubah #15]. When Mr. Ubah immediately appealed the litigation steps andsanctions that this Court imposed in Ubah #14 and #15, the Alberta Court of Appeal concluded that Mr.

Ubah had no right of appeal forcertain complaints, and Mr. Ubah’s other grounds for appeal that challenged family dispute litigation management steps had no basis inlaw or fact: Ubah ABCA #5. Mr. Ubah had actually not even identified any bases for how this Court had acted improperly or illegally:Ubah ABCA #5 at para 11. [5] These developments are, in most ways, an unremarkable extension of Mr. Ubah’s abusive litigation conduct pattern, whichindicates the current litigation management approaches directed to Mr. Ubah should be continued.

However, when this Court evaluatesfamily subject disputes where children are involved, then the best interests of those children are central to the Court’s decision-making:Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F-4.5 s 18; Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp) s 16.

There is a well-established and long-standingpresumption in Canadian law that the best interests of the child are promoted when both parents have the maximum contact withchildren: Gordon v Goertz, (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 27; Barendregt v Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22. [6] From the last information that I have received, the two children of the Ubahs’ relationship are with their mother. The custodyarrangement for the children is a live issue.

Another issue is that the Ubahs have each alleged the other has engaged in threats and abuse.Though I hope that the interactions between the Ubahs stabilize, at present, this family law matter appears headed to be a high conflictdispute. Mr. Ubah’s litigation practices and pattern of making false and groundless claims predicts that the path forward in this familysubject dispute will be very difficult. [7] Nevertheless, in the best interests of the Ubahs’ children, Mr. Ubah’s participation in this family law process is necessary. Ifthe Court can arrange that Mr.

Ubah remains involved with his children in a safe and lawful manner, then that objective must beconsidered. However, steps towards that goal must be balanced against Mr. Ubah’s longstanding record of abusive, attack litigation,directed against those he targets, or who obstruct his objectives. Mr. Ubah obviously sees Ms. Ubah as exactly that. B. Sheriff Escort Requirement [8] Second, Mr. Ubah is currently subject to a requirement that Mr. Ubah is prohibited from entering any courthouse in Alberta,except where Mr. Ubah follows a Court specified procedure to contact the Sheriffs, and that Mr.

Ubah is accompanied by a Sheriff as anescort: 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]). This Sheriffescort step was made in parallel to analogous steps that were already imposed in the Provincial Court of Alberta by O’Gorman ACPCJ:Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2019 ABQB 359 at para 12 [Ubah #3]. [9] The Sheriff escort arrangements were taken because of Mr. Ubah’s problematic courthouse activities, that has required Mr.Ubah be ejected from the Courthouse. Mr. Ubah frequently ignores court instructions, and he is aggressive and disruptive when he doesnot get what he wants. Mr.

Ubah had been abusive in courtrooms, and acted improperly in his interactions with the Court Clerks. Mr.Ubah has also targeted the Sheriffs with baseless allegations of harassment and improper treatment (Ubah #4 at para 39). Mr. Ubah hasdenied, wrongly, that he can legally be subject to courthouse access steps (Ubah #3 at para 15). In his most recent correspondence withmy office, Mr. Ubah has broadly declared he rejects the Sheriff’s authority to monitor him. [10] Mr. Ubah’s problematic in-person courthouse and courtroom actions are part of a broader pattern. Mr.

Ubah’s litigationrecord shows he has had to be physically removed from locations such as hospitals and businesses, and that, as a consequence, Mr. Ubahis subject of trespass notices: Ubah #4 at para 174. [11] Mr. Ubah has recently complained again about the Sheriff escort arrangement, following his usual practice of makingimproper demands in letter form, rather than following the leave to apply process set in Ubah #4 to vary a Court Order.

Nevertheless, Ihave, in an excess of caution, contacted Inspector Bjornson of the Alberta Sheriffs to evaluate whether the current arrangement with Mr.Ubah should be removed or modified. I received a response by email from Inspector Bjornson on October 30, 2022. The particularlyrelevant factor identified by Inspector Bjornson is that, in his opinion, once Mr. Ubah is in the courthouse building, then the usualbuilding management and security mitigation strategies are an adequate safeguard of good behaviour. Inspector Bjornson indicates that

the staffing requirement for Sheriffs to escort Mr. Ubah is problematic since that “... effectively removed a Sheriff from other operational requirements such as, but not limited to, staffing courtrooms.” [ 12 ] In light of Inspector Bjornson’s report, I conclude that the current Sheriff escort requirement should be terminated. That, however, does not address Mr. Ubah’s extended history of bad conduct, and Mr. Ubah’s refusal to follow court directions and procedures. I will now review Mr. Ubah’s record to provide context for the steps that follow. II.

Chinedu Ubah’s Litigation Record [ 13 ] This Decision is a global re-evaluation of litigation and litigant management steps for Mr. Ubah. As a first point, I reject that Mr. Ubah has become a good faith, fair-dealing litigant. His actions this year have only reaffirmed that Mr. Ubah’s abusive and malicious practices continue to the present. “... To date, Mr. Ubah has conducted himself as a no-holds barred, dirty-tricks, always combative litigant, for whom the rules are optional, unless it is him who chooses to impose them. ...”: Ubah #15 at para 38. [ 14 ] Mr.

Ubah’s actions demonstrate that, as far as he is concerned, rules are for the other parties. Mr. Ubah manipulates and ignores court processes and procedures to obtain what Mr. Ubah wants. [ 15 ] Prior to designing a renewed litigation structure for Mr. Ubah, I will first briefly review this and other Court’s conclusions in relation to Mr.

Ubah’s litigation conduct, located in: Ubah #3 , Ubah #4 , Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2020 ABQB 40 ; Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2020 ABQB 516 ; Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2020 ABQB 547 ; Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2020 ABQB 576 ; Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2021 ABQB 208 ; Ubah #14 , Ubah #15 , Canada (Attorney General) v Ubah , 2021 FC 1466 : Ubah v Canada , 2022 FC 343 ; Ubah v Canada , 2022 FCA 129 ; Ubah v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta Appeal Board , 2022 ABCA 158 ; Ubah ABCA #5 : 1. Mr.

Ubah has engaged in abusive and futile litigation in all three Alberta Courts, the Federal Courts of Canada, the Immigration and Citizenship proceedings, and a professional tribunal. That has led to Mr. Ubah being subject to court access restrictions by what are sometimes called “vexatious litigant orders” in multiple forums. 2. Mr. Ubah’s abusive and hopeless litigation is diverse, and falls into a number of streams:

a) repeated actions that target his former employers, that at least in part appear to be intended to extort payments and favourable employment references;

b) attacks on businesses, banks, and organizations, where Mr. Ubah alleges he has been mistreated; Mr. Ubah demands improper and unwarranted payments; and

c) over 20 immigration matters, where Mr. Ubah operates as a “busybody” actor and litigation representative for numerous relatives: some children, some adults. 3. Mr. Ubah claims he is the target of bad faith and biased conduct by many judges and justices. Mr. Ubah often alleges they, or some of them, operate with bad discriminatory intent. Another frequent complaint by Mr. Ubah is that he is persecuted and mistreated because he is a self-represented litigant. Mr. Ubah claims there are conspiracies of government actors and judges/justices against him.

Appeal courts and the Canadian Judicial Council have uniformly rejected Mr. Ubah’s allegations as baseless. 4. Mr. Ubah ignores court procedure and processes:

a) engaging in collateral attacks and re-litigation of settled disputes,

b) bypassing litigation and communications management processes put in place to mitigate the harm caused by his activities, c) “judge shopping” when he does not get the answers and responses he demands, and

d) initiating appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal and Alberta Court of Appeal where the Court has no jurisdiction. 5. Mr. Ubah does not pay costs awards made against, him, and claims he lacks the funds to retain a lawyer. That is despite Mr. Ubah, in his immigration matters, deposing he seeks to sponsor his relatives as employees to work in household or business tasks. Mr. Ubah also pays his appeal filing fees, but not trial costs orders, or penalties imposed by the Alberta Court of King’s Bench in an attempt to manage Mr. Ubah’s abuse of court processes. [ 16 ] Mr.

Ubah’s problematic conduct extends outside his litigation activities, to Mr. Ubah’s improper interactions with the Court. As I have previously indicated, that has led to Mr. Ubah requiring a Sheriff escort. Mr. Ubah also misuses email and telephone communications, sending repeated harassing demands. That led my office to adopt a policy that Mr. Ubah would receive no replies unless he communicated with the Court in compliance with the Ubah #4 court access gatekeeping instructions. That, however, led to Mr.

Ubah simply demanding over and over his communications are answered, immediately, or in the manner he sets. [ 17 ] Then, at the beginning of the family dispute with Ms. Ubah, Mr. Ubah completely ignored the Court’s litigation and litigant management steps (reviewed in Ubah #14 ), bypassing the Court’s gatekeeping processes, filing materials in breach of the long-standing court access restrictions, and making ex parte appearances in Emergency Hearing Chambers where Mr. Ubah did not disclose he is subject to court access gatekeeping. Only later did that come to light, and Mr.

Ubah’s illegal proceedings were terminated. I, subsequently, in Ubah #15 , concluded that Mr. Ubah then misled the Court as to his activities, and intentionally, knowingly, and blatantly attempted to cover up what he had done, and concluded: ... no matter how one parses Mr. Ubah’s narrative, excuses, and misdirections, one fact is beyond dispute. I never gave him permission to

file anything in relation to his wife and her father. Nevertheless, Mr. Ubah managed to trigger two separate court hearings, both ex-parte , where the targets of his illegal filing were not present. Mr. Ubah, alone, is responsible for that. [Emphasis in original, Ubah #15 at para 11.] [ 18 ] Given Mr. Ubah’s record, the new abusive litigant management and mitigation scheme that follows falls to the stringent end of the spectrum. That is because Mr. Ubah is simply unresponsive and uncooperative with the Court, and that has been proven and re- proven time and again. III.

Steps Forward [ 19 ] There is no basis to reduce or restrict the litigation and litigant management steps that already have been set for Mr. Ubah. This judgment has three roles, to: 1. impose more effective steps to manage Mr.

Ubah’s access to and communications with the Court, 2. create a structure for the Ubahs’ family dispute litigation, and 3. collect and update the existing court access restrictions imposed in prior Alberta Court of King’s Bench Decisions. [ 20 ] This Decision in certain instances continues steps imposed in earlier Court decisions, including Ubah #4 (as modified by Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2021 ABCA 5 ), Ubah #14 , and Ubah #15 . Where an earlier litigation and litigant management step is continued, that is because there is no basis to change that earlier step. As previously observed, Mr.

Ubah’s litigation conduct has not improved, and there is no basis for the Court to examine whether less stringent steps are required. In that sense the negative findings by this Court of fact and law made in previous decisions remain the same. The only question is how the Court, given Mr. Ubah’s bad conduct, can achieve more functional litigation and litigant management structures. A. Communications and Contact Provisions [ 21 ] As previously indicated, Mr. Ubah interacts with the Court in disruptive, inappropriate, manipulative, and evasive ways. Earlier steps that have been attempted to modulate Mr.

Ubah’s interactions with the Court have been ignored and bypassed. For example, Mr. Ubah has been banned from communicating with the Court by email ( Ubah #15 at paras 42-44), because Mr. Ubah has engaged in excessive, inappropriate, and harassing email communication. Mr. Ubah makes and escalates demands via email. In Ubah #14 and Ubah #15 , I concluded that Mr. Ubah used email filing as a way to bypass and evade litigation management steps. When Mr. Ubah was prohibited from communicating with the Court via email, I imposed that term on an “honor system”, that Mr.

Ubah would voluntarily comply with that prohibition. Mr. Ubah since has breached that by emails to my office on October 12, 2022, and twice on November 1, 2022. Mr. Ubah continued his practice of doing whatever it is he wants. [ 22 ] In light of these reoccurring issues, and Mr. Ubah repeatedly breaching steps set to manage his abusive activities, I concluded that a very strict communications structure is necessary for Mr. Ubah, paralleling that set in Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABKB 732 ; Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 525 ; and Tican v Alamgir , 2022 ABKB 626 .

Since it is no longer feasible that Mr. Ubah is escorted while in the courthouse, these steps are intended, to the degree possible, to negate the need for Mr. Ubah to directly enter into Alberta courthouses, and interact with the Court and its staff. 1. Chinedu Gideon Ubah must describe himself in any communication with the Alberta Court of King’s Bench as “Chinedu Gideon Ubah”, and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym. 2. Mr.

Ubah is prohibited from any direct or indirect communication with the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, except in documentary form, and where those documents are submitted to the Court either by:

a) registered mail, addressed to the “Manager, Alberta Court of King’s Bench Administration”, or if directly communicating with a Justice or Applications Judge of this Court, to the Judicial Assistant of that Justice or Judge, or

b) filing or submitting documents via a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Mr. Ubah in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, pursuant to the Legal Professions Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 . 3. To exclude any confusion, that means that Mr. Ubah is prohibited from:

a) any communication with any Alberta Court of King’s Bench Clerks, Judicial Assistants, Court Coordinators, or other Alberta Court of King’s Bench of Alberta staff,

b) personally appearing at the Court’s Counters, or reception desks, and

c) filing or otherwise submitting documents by entering the courthouse and physically depositing those documents; without an Order of the Chief Justice, or Associate Chief Justice, or her or his designate, which permits that contact. 4. Any materials received from Mr. Ubah, including communication of any kinds, documents, and purported filing, that are received by means other than the approved forms, shall be immediately discarded without any response. 5. The Clerks shall have the right to request that the Sheriffs remove Mr. Ubah from the courthouse if he fails to comply with the prohibition on him attending the Court’s Counters.

6. The email address that Mr. Ubah has used in his emails to the Court (ubah.chinedu@yahoo.com), and any new one, shall be blocked so emails from that source address (or otherwise) by Mr. Ubah, are not received by the Court. [ 23 ] I note that I had previously recommended in Ubah #15 at para 45 that Mr. Ubah communicate using registered mail because Mr. Ubah sends materials to the Court and my office, then demands, over and over, acknowledgement of whether those materials were received. This mechanism for delivering materials will respond to Mr. Ubah’s abusive communications. [ 24 ] I caution that if Mr.

Ubah attempts to bypass this procedure and to communicate with the Court via a different email address, then that email address will also be banned, and Mr. Ubah may be subject to negative consequences, including Rule 10.49(1) penalties. B. General Court Access Restrictions [ 25 ] In Ubah #4 , Mr. Ubah was made subject to general court access restrictions. Those steps were largely confirmed on appeal, leave was rejected by the Supreme Court of Canada, and costs were imposed on Mr.

Ubah by the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 26 ] The September 6, 2019, Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket No. 1801 17978 “Vexatious Litigant and Court Filing Restriction for Chinedu Gideon Ubah” is now vacated, and replaced by the following terms, while continuing the pre-existing court access gatekeeping steps, with amendments to account for

part III(C), below: 1. Paragraph 3 does not apply to litigation and processes in Ubah v Ubah , Alberta Court of King’s Bench Dockets Nos. FL01 37992 and 4801 194949. 2. Chinedu Gideon Ubah is a vexatious litigant, and is prohibited from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing, any appeal, action, application, or proceeding: (

i) in the Alberta Court of Appeal, Alberta Court of King’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, and (ii) on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate, without an order for leave of the Court in which the proceeding is conducted. 3. Subject to paragraph 12 hereof, to commence or continue an appeal, application, or other proceeding in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench or the Provincial Court of Alberta, Chinedu Gideon Ubah shall submit an application to the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, respectively, or his or her designate: (

i) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may, at any time, direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person. (ii) Any application shall be made in writing. (iii) Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:

a) attaching a copy of the Order restricting Chinedu Gideon Ubah’s access to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, and Provincial Court of Alberta;

b) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Chinedu Gideon Ubah proposes to issue or file or continue;

c) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it;

d) indicating whether Chinedu Gideon Ubah has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or Court, and if so providing full particulars;

e) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the Order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the Order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents; and

f) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding. (iv) The Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice, or Chief Judge, or his or her designate, may:

a) give notice of the proposed claim or proceeding and the opportunity to make submissions on the proposed claim or proceeding, if he or she so chooses, to any of: (1) the potentially involved parties; (2) other relevant persons identified by the Court; or (3) the Attorneys General of Alberta and Canada;

b) respond to and dispose of the leave application in writing; and

c) decide the application in open Court where it shall be recorded. 4. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs, and proof of

payment of all prior cost awards. 5. An application that is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly. 6. An application to vary or set aside this Order must be made on notice to any person as directed by the Court. 7. For greater clarity, this Order has no effect on existing court access restrictions imposed by the Provincial Court of Alberta, including: (

i) the August 22, 2018 Order of D.B.

Higa PCJ in Ubah v AVH Engineering Inc , Provincial Court of Alberta Docket P1890101892, that prohibits certain communications and which prohibits Chinedu Gideon Ubah from commencing actions in the Provincial Court of Alberta without leave and payment of identified costs orders; (ii) the October 9, 2018 Order of Burt PCJ in Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , Provincial Court of Alberta Docket P1590104216, as varied on November 5, 2018, that prohibits Chinedu Gideon Ubah from commencing certain actions in the Provincial Court of Alberta until identified costs orders are paid; and (iii) the April 12, 2019 direction of O’Gorman ACPCJ that Chinedu Gideon Ubah is prohibited from appearing in a Provincial Court of Alberta Family courtroom, except with a sheriff escort. 8.

Chinedu Gideon Ubah is prohibited from: (

i) providing legal advice, preparing documents intended to be filed in court for any person other than himself, and filing or otherwise communicating with any Alberta court, except on him own behalf; and (ii) acting as an agent, next friend, McKenzie Friend (from McKenzie v McKenzie , [1970] 3 All ER 1034 (UK CA) and Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 , ss 2.22-2.23), or any other form of representation in court proceedings, before the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal. 9.

The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse to accept or file any documents or other materials from Chinedu Gideon Ubah, unless: (

i) Chinedu Gideon Ubah is a named party in the action in question, and (ii) if the documents and other materials are intended to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding, Chinedu Gideon Ubah has been granted leave pursuant to this Order to take that step by the Court. 10. All fee waivers granted to Chinedu Gideon Ubah by the Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal are revoked. 11.

The Clerks of the Provincial Court of Alberta, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, and Alberta Court of Appeal shall refuse any fee waiver application by Chinedu Gideon Ubah unless Chinedu Gideon Ubah has a valid court order which authorizes same. 12. The Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta, or his or her designate, may, on his or her own authority, vary the terms of this Order in relation to the requirement, procedure or any preconditions to obtain leave to initiate or continue litigation in their respective Courts. C.

Litigation Management Steps for the Ubah v Ubah Alberta Court of King’s Bench Family Dispute Litigation [ 27 ] As previously indicated, special considerations apply to the Ubahs’ family dispute litigation, and management of that proceeding. I understand that at present both parties are self-represented. This matter has the hallmarks of a being or becoming a high conflict family proceeding. Both sides have made very serious allegations against the other. Mr.

Ubah’s conduct in this matter to date has matched, if not exceeded, his historic abusive litigation patterns and practices. [ 28 ] I have concluded this matter requires close judicial oversight, and, therefore, assign Justice Kachur as the Case Management Justice. I immediately impose these requirements on the parties: 1. Chinedu Gideon Ubah and Geraldine Chiderah Ubah are prohibited from filing any document in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket FL01 37992 and 4801 194949 proceedings, except with leave of the Case Management Justice. 2.

Chinedu Gideon Ubah and Geraldine Chiderah Ubah shall submit candidate filings in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket FL01 37992 and 4801 194949 proceedings to the Case Management Justice along with an up to (no more than) a maximum ten-page letter to explain the basis for the candidate filing. 3. Candidate filings by Chinedu Gideon Ubah in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket FL01 37992 and 4801 194949 proceedings shall be submitted to the Case Management Justice by the process in

part III(

A) above. 4. If the Case Management Justice grants leave to file a document in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket FL01 37992 and 4801 194949 proceedings, Chinedu Gideon Ubah shall submit that document to the Clerks for filing, along with filing fees, by the process in

part III(

A) above.

5. Any application or other hearing in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket FL01 37992 and 4801 194949 proceedings shall be heard by the Case Management Justice, by WebEx. 6. For clarity, Chinedu Gideon Ubah is prohibited from entering the Calgary Court Centre to appear in Court in relation to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket FL01 37992 and 4801 194949 proceedings, except with an order of the Case Management Justice permitting that step. 7. Chinedu Gideon Ubah is prohibited from initiating any litigation step in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench Docket FL01 37992 and 4801 194949 proceedings, except where Chinedu Gideon Ubah has paid all outstanding costs awards and Rule 10.49(

a) penalties imposed in the FL01 37992 and 4801 194949 proceedings. [ 29 ] These case management rules may be varied, vacated, and expanded by the Case Management Justice at her discretion. [ 30 ] I will briefly discuss the requirement that Mr. Ubah is required to pay outstanding costs and penalty awards before taking steps in this matter. That requirement includes the penalty assessed in Ubah #15 at para 12, which Mr.

Ubah attempted to appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal, that had no jurisdiction on that litigation management step: Ubah ABCA #5 at para 5 . [ 31 ] First, a variation on that requirement was confirmed in Ubah ABCA #5 as an appropriate step to manage Mr. Ubah’s abusive litigation strategies in his family law subject disputes. Second, I impose this step under the Court’s Grepe v Loam authority: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 344-352 . [ 32 ] Third, the evidence before the Court, that comes from Mr. Ubah himself, is that Ms.

Ubah is the caregiver for the two children of the relationship. Ms. Ubah is the only parent who has an identified income. Her job is delivery of online orders: Ubah #15 at para 16. Mr. Ubah, on one hand, says he is a professional engineer, and, as previously noted, has in his immigration litigation indicated he seeks to hire relatives to work in his home and business. Mr. Ubah also claims to be destitute, and unable to hire a lawyer, but Mr. Ubah has never provided the Court with any evidence of his income so as to justify a fee waiver. Mr.

Ubah had the funds to file the recently dismissed Ubah v Ubah , 2201-0210AC (Alta CA) appeal, but has, historically, refused to pay any of the many costs awards against him. [ 33 ] Mr. Ubah’s extensive and extremely unfavourable litigation record establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Ubah weaponizes litigation processes. Mr. Ubah has demonstrated a relentless pattern of extended, repeated, abusive litigation against those he targets. Mr. Ubah’s current litigation target, his wife, is not a large corporation, or a government actor, who can “absorb” the expense and harm that flows from how Mr.

Ubah operates. In this context, Mr. Ubah’s well-established pattern of inflicting litigation harm and costs on opposing parties is highly problematic. I, therefore, conclude that Mr. Ubah should be subject to the mandatory payment requirement so as to mitigate Mr. Ubah using court processes as a mechanism to impose economic hardship on his spouse. [ 34 ] Put another way, the best interests of the Ubahs’ children are not served by Mr. Ubah squandering the parents’ resources, money, and time, via Mr.

Ubah’s usual litigation stratagems. [ 35 ] Whether this step is continued by the Case Management Justice will reflect Mr. Ubah’s conduct going forward. As I observed in Ubah #15 at para 41: If Mr. Ubah wants to establish a basis for this Court to trust that he is an appropriate parent for the Children, then Mr. Ubah also needs to build a basis and/or record that he will conform to court instructions. If that is what he wants, then Mr. Ubah should change his approach to litigation, tribunals, and courts, immediately. Until that occurs, Mr. Ubah’s dreadful litigation record will remain with him and define him.

In that context, Mr. Ubah can expect little leeway from the decisionmakers of this Court. [ 36 ] It really is up to Mr. Ubah whether and how the family law litigation with Ms. Ubah proceeds. I, once again, very strongly recommend Mr. Ubah retain legal counsel. He needs it. IV. Conclusion [ 37 ] This Decision updates the litigation and litigant management procedures for Mr. Ubah’s operations at the Alberta Court of Kings Bench. I, once again, stress to Mr. Ubah that he should immediately change his conduct. Mr.

Ubah in his correspondence to my office complains at great length about how it is necessary that he take steps in Court that relate to his children. He is a parent, so his role with those children is important. Now Mr. Ubah has a structure in place for that. [ 38 ] No costs result from this Decision. The Court will draft the Order given effect to this Decision. Mr. and Ms. Ubah’s approval of that Order is dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision shall be served on Mr. Ubah by email to the address: ubah.chinedu@yahoo.com. This Decision shall be served on Ms.

Ubah by email to the address: geraldine.ubah@gmail.com. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 14 th day of November, 2022. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.K.B.A.

Appearances: None