Christofi v Taing, 2023 ABKB 344

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Christofi v Taing, 2023 ABKB 344 Date: 20230607 Docket: 1901 15377, 2101 02852 Registry: Calgary Between: Mike Christofi and quality painting Proposed Applicants - and - Marie taing and kahane law office 7309 flint rd sc Proposed Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mike Christofi (Mr.

Christofi) in July 2022 was made subject to court access gatekeeping pursuant to Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 as a consequence of Mr. Christofi’s pattern of persistent, repeated abusive litigation. That litigant gatekeeping step was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Alberta, then the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave to appeal: Christofi v Jeffrey V Kahane Professional Corporation , 2022 ABCA 284 , leave to appeal refused, 40507 (4 May 2023). Mr.

Christofi has previously been refused leave to initiate proceedings before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta: e.g., Christofi v Kahane Law Office , 2023 ABKB 122 ( Christofi v Kahane #5 ); Christofi v Taing , 2023 ABKB 162 ( Christofi v Kahane #6 ). [ 2 ] On May 8, 2023, Mr. Christofi by email submitted to my office:

1) an “Application”, with the style of cause reproduced above; 2) a “Memorandum of Argument” filed in the Court of Appeal of Alberta on April 7, 2023; 3) an undated and apparently unfiled “Affidavit in Support of Application” by Mr. Christofi, dated March 6, 2023 that attaches a collection of receipts and other documents; and 4) a transcript of the March 8, 2019 trial and judgment before Burt PCJ (as he then was) in Alberta Court of Justice Action No.

P1790104251, Mike Christofi carrying on business as Quality Painting vs Marie Taing and Taing Holdings Ltd. [ 3 ] The Application lists three Court Action Numbers, two of which are Court of King’s Bench of Alberta matters: 1901 15377, and 2101 02852, while the third appears to be to the Court of Justice of Alberta Action No. P1790104251. The complete body of the Application reads: Remedy claimed or sought: 1. (

I) Judgement against Marie Taing for damages based on justice JT Eamons Court order Aug 19 2020

(2) Court order to declare Kahane Law Office responsible For damages For Judgement Against me March 08 2019 court order to Dismiss all queens Bench Court Orders against Me Mike Christofi Grounds for making this application: 2. Justice Eamons court order aug 19 2020 Affidavid of Mike Christofi March 6 2023 Material or evidence to be relied on: 3. Affidavit of Mike christofi March 08 2023 Exhibits 1to 8 Applicable rules: 4.

Fraud Abuse of process intensional tort By Kahane law office Lawyers Applicable Acts and regulations: 5. fraud Abuse of process intensional tort not defeated by the general principal the Lawyers owes no duty to an opposing party Any Irregularity complained of or objection relied on: 6. How the application is proposed to be heard or considered: 7. i like the aplication to be heart by by the Chief judge Nelson (Sic, emphasis in original.) [ 4 ] In the interests of judicial efficiency, I will respond to these materials as an Application by Mr.

Christofi to obtain permission - “leave” - to file and initiate a proceeding, though exactly what that proceeding may be is unclear. The principles that govern this leave process were recently reviewed in Christofi v Kahane #5 at paras 5-11 . Mr. Christofi is, therefore, well aware of the requirements for a valid leave application. [ 5 ] I reject Mr. Christofi’s May 8, 2023 Application on multiple bases: 1) Mr.

Christofi provides no unfiled proposed filing for which leave is sought, unless that is the Application, and if so, the Application is incomprehensible and, to the degree it is comprehensible, in conflict with prior decisions of Alberta Courts; 2) The Application relies on the March 8, 2023 leave to file request that was explicitly rejected by myself in Christofi v Kahane #6 , so the May 8, 2023 Application is attempting to re-litigate that prior Memorandum of Decision of this Court; 3) Mr.

Christofi has not established on a balance of probabilities that his proposed litigation or litigation step has a reasonable basis, indeed, it is not apparent even what Mr. Christofi is now attempting to do; 4) Action No. 1901 15377 has now terminated, and Mr. Christofi has unsuccessfully sought appeal of that matter to the Court of Appeal of Alberta ( Christofi v Kahane Law Office , 2021 ABQB 608 at paras 8-10 ), so this Court is functus; and 5) Action No. 2101 02852 was struck out in Christofi v Kahane Law Office , 2021 ABQB 608 , and Mr.

Christofi’s late appeal of that proceeding was rejected as hopeless ( Christofi v Kahane Law Office , 2021 ABCA 393 ), so this Court is functus. [ 6 ] I also take judicial notice of the fact the Application continues a pattern in which Mr. Christofi responds to any negative outcome by immediately submitting additional materials that, to the degree these materials can be evaluated, simply challenge prior settled outcomes. For example, when I refused leave to Mr. Christofi in Christofi v Kahane #5 on March 2, 2023, Mr.

Christofi six days later submitted another leave to file application that was in turn refused in Christofi v Kahane #6 . More recently, Mr. Christofi was refused leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada: Michalakis C Christofi also known as Mike Christofi v Jeffrey V. Kahane Professional Corporation (May 4, 2023), Ottawa 40507 (SCC). Six days later, Mr. Christofi submitted the Application to my office.

[ 7 ] These rapid turn-around re-litigation steps are part of a broader pattern of abusive re-litigation in which Mr. Christofi simply ignores any and all legislation and Court procedure. Mr. Christofi’s problematic litigation patterns were reviewed by Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Christofi v Newcombe , 2022 ABQB 429 . One example identified by Associate Chief Justice Rooke that illustrates Mr. Christofi’s non-compliance with Court procedures and processes is that when Action No. 2101 02852 was struck out, Mr. Christofi, without legal basis, attempted to unilaterally re-open that proceeding, which led to Mr.

Christofi’s Application being unfiled: Christofi v Kahane Law Office , 2021 ABQB 897 , appeal struck 2101 0295AC (Alta CA). That did not end Mr. Christofi’s activities, since Mr. Christofi again, without legal basis, and in breach of Court Order, made further unauthorized and improper filings that were also unfiled: Christofi v Kahane Law Office , 2022 ABQB 29 . And now, a year later, Mr.

Christofi appears to once again be attempting to initiate something in Action No. 2101 02852, despite him exhausting his valid litigation options at the Court of Appeal of Alberta. [ 8 ] In Christofi v Kahane #5 at para 21 , I cautioned Mr. Christofi “... that abuse of this Court’s leave processes may lead to negative consequences, such as penalties pursuant to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court ...”. In Christofi v Kahane #6 at para 8 , I then stated: “I again caution Mr.

Christofi that if he persists in bringing these types of leave Applications, he may be subject to negative consequences.” [ 9 ] This Memorandum of Decision is Mr. Christofi’s final warning: if he continues to file hopeless and abusive leave applications with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, he can expect r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 penalties to be imposed. [ 10 ] I very strongly recommend Mr. Christofi obtain professional legal assistance.

Mindful of the Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 instruction that Canadian judges shall provide information on litigation alternatives to self-represented litigants, such as Mr. Christofi, if Mr. Christofi disagrees with the result of this Memorandum of Decision, he may seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 7 th day of June, 2023. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Mike Christofi Self-represented Litigant