Ubah v Ubah, 2022 ABKB 789

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Ubah v Ubah, 2022 ABKB 789 Date: 20221128 Docket: FL01 37992, 4801 194949 Registry: Calgary Between: Chinedu Gideon Ubah Party - and - Geraldine Chiderah Ubah Party Corrected judgment: A corrigendum was issued on December 2, 2022; the corrections have been made to the text and the corrigendum is appended to this judgment. _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________

[ 1 ] Chinedu Gideon Ubah [Mr. Ubah] is a highly problematic disruptive and abusive litigant who has operated for many years in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. Mr. Ubah’s litigation record and courthouse conduct can only be described as abysmal. 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 disturbing degree, Mr. Ubah does what Mr. Ubah wants, and often he gets away with it.

That has led to much waste, harm to opposing litigants, and interference with the operation of this Court and its staff, from Clerks through to judicial decision-makers. [ 2 ] Mr. Ubah is simply relentless in his efforts to continue and expand his abusive litigation conduct, on his own terms. Mr. Ubah never voluntarily 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’s attempt to challenge and reopen litigation from three years earlier, that Mr. Ubah had appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

As Justice Antonio observed in Ubah v Ubah , 2022 ABCA 329 at para 10 , Mr. Ubah’s continued complaints target long settled issues. But that is how Mr. Ubah operates - he never lets go. [ 3 ] Recently, in a court decision reported as Ubah v Ubah , 2022 ABKB 753 [ Ubah #16 ], this Court designed and implemented a comprehensive revised litigant and litigation management structure for Mr. Ubah. That change was chiefly in response to the Sheriffs informing the Court that escorting Mr. Ubah was expending disproportionate Sheriff resources, and because Mr. Ubah is now in a family subject dispute with his spouse.

The Court is aware of and sensitive to the special family dispute litigation factors and considerations, when the best interests of children are in play: Ubah #16 at paras 5-7. A Case Management Justice was therefore assigned to supervise the high conflict litigation between the Ubahs: Ubah #16 at paras 27-36. [ 4 ] Unsurprisingly, Mr. Ubah has once more further expanded his pattern of harassment and misuse of court and dispute resolution resources. I have been contacted by the Manager of Alberta Justice Information Services, who reports that Mr.

Ubah is now “continuously” attending and harassing the staff of the Information Services and the Resolution Support Counter. Mr. Ubah repeatedly demands he receive services from these staff. This pattern by Mr. Ubah of incessant, bullying appearances, and communications and demands, is very familiar. That is Mr. Ubah’s modus operandi . [ 5 ] Mr. Ubah’s has a lengthy and escalating pattern of inappropriate, disruptive, deceptive, and manipulative conduct with the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. He targets staff at all levels.

That led me to conclude, in Ubah #16 at paras 21-24, that a strict communications regime is necessary to prevent Mr. Ubah from wasting court resources, manipulating court processes, and harassing and bullying court staff. I note this Court has a legal obligation, pursuant to Occupational Health and Safety Act , RSA 2000, c O-2 .1 s 3(1)(

b) to take reasonable and practical steps to prevent workplace harassment and bullying. That is in addition to this Court’s responsibility to protect its function, and the safety of its processes, including activities that target and harm vulnerable front-line staff: JSG (Re) , 2021 ABQB 555 at paras 8-13 ; Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2019 ABQB 196 at para 10 . [ 6 ] Mr. Ubah’s bad conduct now extends to Information Services. In parallel to the steps in Ubah #16 at paras 21-24, I order: 1. Mr.

Ubah is prohibited from any direct or indirect communication with the Alberta Information Services and Resolution Support Counter, except in documentary form, and where those documents are submitted by registered mail, addressed to the “Manager, Information Services, Business and Resolution Services”. 2. To exclude any confusion, that means that Mr. Ubah is prohibited from:

a) any communication with any personnel of Information Services and the Resolution Support Counters,

b) personally appearing at the Information Services and Resolution Support Counters, or reception desks, and

c) submitting documents to Information Services and Resolution Support Counters by entering the courthouse or other Government of Alberta buildings 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. 3. Any materials received from Mr. Ubah, including communication of any kinds, documents, and purported filings, that are received by means other than the approved form, shall be immediately discarded without any response. 4. 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 Information Services and Resolution Support Counters and reception desks. [ 7 ] The reported abusive conduct of Mr. Ubah is sufficient, on its own, to merit this step, particularly in light of the Court’s extended and repeated experiences that demonstrate Mr. Ubah simply ignores instructions, and does whatever he wants. For example, just one day after this Court issued Ubah #16 , Mr.

Ubah, once more, improperly communicated with my office, demanding he set the terms of his interaction with the Court and its staff to what he wants. That communication was in breach of the Ubah #16 communications and litigation management protocols, and so was rejected. [ 8 ] However, in those materials, Mr. Ubah disclosed something interesting. Mr. Ubah has very frequently complained that he, a self-represented litigant, is badly treated, abused, and discriminated against by biased, unfair Canadian courts.

Those allegations have been consistently and uniformly rejected on appeal and by the Canadian Judicial Council. However, Mr. Ubah is now no longer a self- represented litigant, since he has been assigned a lawyer by Legal Aid Alberta on November 14, 2022. Thus, not only has Mr. Ubah decided to take steps prohibited by this Court, and in doing so misused and abused the resources and staff of the Information Services branch of Alberta Justice Business and Resolution Services, that has occurred while Mr. Ubah already has a lawyer to conduct Mr.

Ubah’s litigation. [ 9 ] I draw a negative inference from this fact pattern, though that does not, in substance, alter my conclusion on what additional steps are appropriate and necessary to attempt to manage Mr. Ubah.

[ 10 ] Mr. Ubah should start talking to and listening to his lawyer, and channel his interactions with the Court via his lawyer. Otherwise, Mr. Ubah can expect additional negative consequences. [ 11 ] The Court will draft the Order giving effect to this Decision. Mr. Ubah’s approval of that Order is dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This Decision shall be served on Mr/Ms. Ubah by email to the address on the court file. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 28 th day of November, 2022. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.K.B.A.

Appearances: None Corrigendum of the Memorandum of Decision of The Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ - The personal email addresses of the parties have been removed from paragraph 11.