Bains v Day, 2023 ABKB 401

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Bains v Day, 2023 ABKB 401 Date: 20230706 Dockets: 1901 01056, 1901 03639, 1901 06857, 2001 12996, 2301 00251 Registry: Calgary Between: Docket: 1901 01056 Jagdev Singh Bains Plaintiff - and - Roderick A. Day, John Doe I, John Doe II Defendants And between: Docket: 1901 03639 Jagdev Singh Bains Plaintiff - and - Kevin William Geary, Olive Odile Rawlyk, John Doe I, John Doe II

Defendants And between: Docket: 1901 06857 Jagdev Singh Bains Plaintiff - and - Hassan Y. Adam, Youssouf Adam Abakar , John Doe I, John Doe II Defendants And between: Docket: 2001 12996 Jagdev Singh Bains, Sahib Prem Kaur Plaintiffs - and - Nicholas J. Yardley, Assessmed Inc., Certas Direct Insurance Company Defendants And between: Docket: 2301 00251

Sahib Prem Kaur, Sifatjot Kaur Bains, Sukhmani Bains, Paaras Bains, John Doe Plaintiffs - and - Hassan Youssouf Adam, Youssouf Adam Abakar, Kevin William Geary, Olive Odile Rawlyk, Roderick Day, Certas Direct Insurance Company, Belair Insurance Company Inc., Co-Operators General Insurance Company, John Doe I, John Doe II, John Doe III Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This Memorandum of Decision responds to litigation conducted by Dr. Jagdev Singh Bains (Dr.

Bains) and his wife and three children. The matters I address here are interrelated in that each emerges in one sense or another from tort claims that ultimately centre on how Dr. Bains was allegedly injured in three motor vehicle collisions. I am responding to this litigation as the Administrative Justice of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta who is responsible for management of problematic and abusive litigation and litigants. [ 2 ] The first set of lawsuits that involve Dr. Bains and his family are three proceedings in which Dr.

Bains is the Plaintiff in three separate motor vehicle injury lawsuits: • Jagdev Singh Bains v Roderick A. Day, John Doe I, John Doe II - Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 1901 01056 • Jagdev Singh Bains v Kevin William Geary, Olive Odile Rawlyk, John Doe I, John Doe II - Court of King’s Bench Action No. 1901 03639 • Jagdev Singh Bains v Hassan Y.

Adam, Youssouf Adam Abakar, John Doe I, John Doe II - Court of King’s Bench Action No 1901 06857 The Defendants in these matters have not disputed liability. [ 3 ] The trials of these three matters ( Bains Tort Lawsuits ) are currently being conducted together before Yamauchi J, see Bains v Day , 2022 ABKB 844 at paras 4-14 . Dr.

Bains conducted appeals of pre-trial case management steps in the Bains Tort Lawsuits that led to three Court of Appeal of Alberta reported decisions: Bains v Adam , 2021 ABCA 263 ( Bains ABCA #1 ); Bains v Adam , 2021 ABCA 378 ; Bains v Adam , 2022 ABCA 72 . [ 4 ] On May 27, 2022, the Defendants in the Bains Tort Lawsuits filed an Application that Dr. Bains be subject to court access gatekeeping pursuant to Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1.

While that Application was heard on June 23, 2022 by Associate Chief Justice Rooke, Associate Chief Justice Rooke concluded that the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application should be held in abeyance until the Bains Tort Lawsuits trial was concluded.

When Associate Chief Justice Rooke retired in December 2022, he designated Justice Yamauchi to decide the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application after the completion of the Bains Tort Lawsuits trial: Bains v Day at paras 28-30 . [ 5 ] At present the Yamauchi J has not issued his final decision in the Bains Tort Lawsuits , so the Bains Tort Lawsuit Defendants’ Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 Application remains unresolved. [ 6 ] While the Bains Tort Lawsuits were proceeding to trial, Dr. Bains in 2021 initiated another lawsuit: Jagdev Singh Bains v Simrat Chhina, Thomas W. Percy, Cynthia Aoki, Daniel Downe, David J.

Corrigan - Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2101

10824 (Lawyers Lawsuit). The Defendants in the Lawyers Lawsuit were lawyers who represented the Bains Tort Lawsuits Defendantsand insurers. In Bains v Day, Rooke ACJ concluded that: 1) Dr. Bains initiated the Lawyers Lawsuit in breach of a specific prohibition in Bains ABCA #1 on any litigation by Dr. Bainsagainst these Defendants, making the Lawyers Lawsuit an illegal filing (Bains v Day at paras 21-22); and 2) Dr.

Bains had sought excessive and impossible remedies, that made the Lawyers Lawsuit an abuse of court (Bains v Day at paras23-25). [7] The Lawyers Lawsuit was struck out pursuant to r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010: Bains v Day atpara 26. Dr. Bains was ordered to pay $10,000 in costs: Bains v Day at para 26. Dr.

Bains does not appear to have appealed this result. [8] On January 9, 2023, a Statement of Claim, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2301 00251, was filed that namedfive Plaintiffs, four of whom are identified by name: Sahib Prem Kaur, Sifatjot Kaur Bains, Sukhmani Bains, and Paaras Bains. The lastis “John Doe”. The January 9, 2023 Statement of Claim indicates the four named persons are the “... wife or daughters of Dr. JagdevSingh Bains ...” (Family Lawsuit).

The Statement of Claim indicates at para 2: John Doe, the plaintiff is also party to the claim but is still considering whether they will be added to this claim or they will initiate aseparate claim for themselves. [9] The Family Lawsuit is related to other Court of King’s Bench of Alberta legal proceedings that involve Dr.

Bains in severalways, including: 1) five of the named Defendants (Hassan Youssouf Adam, Youssouf Adam Abakar, Kevin William Geary, Olive Odile Rawlyk,Roderick Day) are the same persons who are Defendants in the Bains Tort Lawsuits; 2) the other three named Defendants (Certas Direct Insurance Company, Belair Insurance Company Inc., Co-Operators GeneralInsurance Company) are the three insurance companies that Dr.

Bains illegally and abusively sued in the Lawyers Lawsuit; 3) the 120 paragraph Family Lawsuit Statement of Claim describes alleged misconduct that duplicates and/or overlaps that in theBains Tort Lawsuits; and 4) the Family Lawsuit Statement of Claim also alleges the conduct of the Bains Tort Lawsuits trial proceeding is illegal and abusive,and advances very serious allegations of misconduct against Yamauchi J, the trial justice. [10] The Family Lawsuit Statement of Claim seeks somewhat over $30 million in damages.

On February 6, 2023, an AmendedStatement of Claim was filed in the Family Lawsuit action that expanded the allegations of misconduct by the Defendants. [11] The next related action is a lawsuit initiated on October 26, 2020 that names Dr. Bains as Plaintiff, and Dr. Nicholas J.Yardley and Assessmed Inc. as Defendants (Bains v Yardley), Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2001 12996. This lawsuitalleges bias, negligent, and unprofessional conduct resulting from a medical examination that was conducted by Dr. Yardley on Dr.Bains as part of the Bains Tort Lawsuits litigation. Dr.

Bains claimed $4.7 million in damages on that basis. An Amended Statement ofClaim was subsequently filed on August 5, 2021 that added Dr. Bains’ wife as a Plaintiff, and Certas Direct Insurance Company as aDefendant, and increased the damages to $5.6 million. Certas Direct Insurance Company is identified in the Amended Statement ofClaim as Dr. Bains’ insurer. [12] The allegations by Dr. Bains against Certas Direct Insurance Company in the Bains v Yardley action are then also repeated inpart in a further lawsuit filed by Dr.

Bains on February 18, 2021: Jagdev Singh Bains and Sahib Prem Kaur v Certas Direct InsuranceCompany, Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2101 02399 (Bains v Certas). Dr. Bains and his wife in this lawsuit claim over$20 million in damages from the Defendant. [13] On April 4, 2023, Counsel for the Bains v Yardley Defendants Dr. Yardley and Assessmed Inc. requested that ActingAssociate Chief Justice Jeffrey place the Bains v Yardley lawsuit into Case Management. Acting Associate Chief Justice Jeffrey declinedto take that step. Subsequently, on May 12, 2023, Counsel for Dr.

Yardley and Assessmed Inc. submitted a Case Management request tome on an ex-parte basis. [14] I deny the Case Management request by the Bains v Yardley Defendants, because I believe that at this point that a differentlitigation and litigant management process should be engaged. In coming to this conclusion, I take into account the historic and emergingproblematic aspects of Dr. Bains litigation, including these factors: 1) Dr.

Bains’ expansive litigation pattern, that includes at least eleven Court of King’s Bench of Alberta actions, and fourteen Courtof Justice of Alberta proceedings; 2) three of the Court of Justice of Alberta actions name Certas Direct Insurance Company as a Defendant; 3) Dr.

Bains’ litigation as reviewed above appears to include duplicative lawsuits; 4) the Bains Tort Lawsuits and the Family Lawsuit appear to be prohibited by the rule that only one lawsuit can emerge fromalleged tortious acts (Cahoon v Franks, (SCC), [1967] SCR 455); 5) the Bains v Yardley and Bains v Certas litigation also offends the rule in Cahoon v Franks; 6) the claims in the Family Lawsuit appear to at least in part have no basis given litigation privilege; 7) the claims, timing, and remedies in the Family Lawsuit suggest that Dr. Bains is using his family members as litigation proxies to

conduct duplicative and unmeritorious litigation; 8) including an anonymous Plaintiff in the Family Lawsuit , “John Doe”, is inherently an abuse of the Court and Defendants by making a meaningful response to the Family Lawsuit impossible ( kisikawpimootewin v Canada , 2004 FC 1426 ); 9) this Court has already in Bains v Day concluded that Dr. Bains ignores Court directions that Dr. Bains is prohibited from conducting specific abusive litigation, and will file new lawsuits in breach of a Court Order; and 10) Dr.

Bains’ problematic conduct during the trial of the Bains Tort Lawsuits , that, among other things, led to contempt findings against and sanctions to Dr. Bains, and have resulted in a substantially protracted trial process. [ 15 ] Succinctly, there is a realistic basis to conclude that Dr. Bains and his family members should be subject to indefinite court access restrictions pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1. The available record predicts that Dr.

Bains and/or his family members may very plausibly initiate further duplicative and abusive proceedings before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, particularly if Dr. Bains is unsuccessful in the Bains Tort Lawsuits . [ 16 ] Given that conclusion, I therefore Order that Dr. Jagdev Singh Bains, Dr. Sahib Prem Kaur, Sifatjot Kaur Bains, Sukhmani Bains, and Paaras Bains are subject to interim court access gatekeeping until the completion of the Bains Tort Lawsuits Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process. This step has the effect of staying on an interim basis all lawsuits by Dr.

Bains and his family members in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. For clarity, that stay does not affect delivery of the Bains Tort Lawsuits judgment under preparation by Justice Yamauchi, since that is not a litigant-initiated process. [ 17 ] I further Order that I will conduct the Bains Tort Lawsuits Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process, instead of Yamachi J.

I take on this task as the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Administrative Justice who responds to litigation and litigant management processes. [ 18 ] I will give further directions on the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process by either a letter or a Memorandum of Decision following Justice Yamauchi releasing his judgment in the Bains Tort Lawsuits . [ 19 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this Memorandum of Decision. Dr. Jagdev Singh Bains, Dr.

Sahib Prem Kaur, Sifatjot Kaur Bains, Sukhmani Bains, and Paaras Bains’ approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to the Alberta Rules of Court . Copies of the Memorandum of Decision and Order will also be directed to Counsel in the Bains Tort Lawsuits , the Family Lawsuit , and the Bains v Yardley Lawsuit . [ 20 ] I am aware that Dr. Bains and his family are unlikely to agree with this result. Mindful of the Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 instruction that Canadian judges shall provide information on litigation alternatives to persons not represented by lawyers, if Dr.

Bains and/or his family members seeks to challenge steps imposed in this Memorandum of Decision, then the appropriate procedure is an appeal to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 6 th day of July, 2023. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances by Submissions: Alison J. Gray Gowlings WLG For the Defendant Dr. Nicholas J. Yardley