Uhrik v Barata, 2023 ABKB 480

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Uhrik v Barata, 2023 ABKB 480 Date: 20230822 Docket: 2201 12047 Registry: Calgary Between: Tibor Uhrik and Lieselotte Litzius Plaintiffs - and - Ryan Barata and Carscallen LLP Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This Memorandum of Decision responds to correspondence received by the Court following issue of Uhrik v Barata , 2023 ABKB 439 on July 24, 2023.

The following timeline summarizes events to date in a lawsuit by Tibor Uhrik (Mr. Uhrik) and Lieselotte Litzius (Ms. Litzius) that names their former legal representatives Ryan Barata and Carscallen LLP as Defendants: Uhrik v Barata , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2201 12047. October 19, 2022 - The Uhrik v Barata Statement of Claim is filed, seeking $250,000 in damages. November 7, 2022 - The Defendants file a Statement of Defence.

April 17, 2023 – Uhrik v Terrigno , 2023 ABKB 223 ( Uhrik v Terrigno #2 ) issues. Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius were made subject to global court access restrictions pursuant to Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1. One effect of that judgment is to stay all proceedings in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta that were initiated by Mr. Uhrik and/or Ms.

Litzius: Tibor Uhrik and Lieselotte Litzius are prohibited from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing, any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench , on his or her own behalf, or on behalf of any other person or estate, without an order of the Chief Justice or Associate Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, or their designate … ( Uhrik v Terrigno #2 at para 69 (1), emphasis added.) Uhrik v Terrigno #2 thus stayed the Uhrik v Barata lawsuit.

However, the Defendants in this matter are not aware of that, and so further processes followed, all without legal authority. May 25, 2023 - The Uhrik v Barata Defendants apply for

Summary Judgment of the Uhrik v Barata action. As noted above, this step was made without legal authority. June 27, 2023 - The parties appear before Applications Judge Park, who issues an Order that sets timelines for taking evidence, and adjourning the

Summary Judgment Application to September 12, 2023. Applications Judge Park was not aware of Uhrik v Terrigno #2 , and so this litigation step was also unauthorized. July 18, 2023 - The Court receives a package of materials from Mr. Uhrik that seeks leave to initiate a litigation process in Uhrik v Barata . Those materials are forwarded to me as the Administrative Justice of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta who responds to abusive litigation and litigant management.

July 24, 2023 - I issue Uhrik v Barata , where I conclude that none of the post-April 17, 2023 steps in this lawsuit had a legal basis since the Uhrik v Barata lawsuit was stayed on April 17, 2023: para 4. I conclude that the Plaintiffs were very well aware of that fact: para 5. Given the unnecessary waste and expenditure of resources in continuing a legal proceeding that is presumptively an abuse of the Court, I ordered at para 6: 1) the September 12, 2023

Summary Judgment Application is adjourned sine die ; 2) Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius have until August 25, 2023 to submit to my office an application for leave to resume the stayed Uhrik v Barata lawsuit, pursuant to Uhrik v Terrigno #2 ; and 3) if no leave application is received from Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius by August 25, 2023, then the Uhrik v Barata lawsuit will be struck out, and costs assessed against Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius. [ 2 ] Subsequent to Uhrik v Barata , Mr.

Uhrik on July 25, 2023 submitted by email a letter with the subject “Re: Leave to seek a Corrigendum ABKB 439 - Correction and clarification required.” Briefly, this correspondence makes numerous complaints, including alleged inaccuracies and errors in the Uhrik v Barata decision, disputes aspects of the June 27, 2023 Order of Applications Judge Park, alleges Uhrik v Terrigno #2 was wrongly decided, and arguments concerning unrelated litigation that does not involve the Defendants.

I then sought submissions from Counsel for the Defendants, who in a letter dated July 28, 2023 reviewed the dispute and litigation to date, and confirmed the Defendants were not aware of the Uhrik v Terrigno #2 court access restrictions. Counsel for the Defendants states the July 25, 2023 correspondence of Mr.

Uhrik extends his pattern of abusive litigation detailed in Uhrik v Terrigno #2 , and requests: 1) the Uhrik v Barata Statement of Claim is struck out, “in accordance with the decision ... in [ Uhrik v Terrigno #2 ]”; or, alternatively, 2) the Uhrik v Barata Statement of Claim should be struck out pursuant to Civil Practice Note 7 (CPN7). [ 3 ] The Court then on July 31, 2023 received a further letter from Mr.

Uhrik that continues and expands on his earlier complaints and demands. [ 4 ] This Memorandum of Decision is to clarify there is at present only one valid process underway in the Uhrik v Barata lawsuit to evaluate the merit (or lack thereof) of that proceeding. That is Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius have until August 25, 2023 to establish their Uhrik v Barata lawsuit has a valid basis: Uhrik v Barata at para 6 . [ 5 ] Mr. Uhrik’s complaints about the June 27, 2023 Order of Applications Judge Park are irrelevant, unless the Uhrik v Barata lawsuit stay is lifted. Similarly, if Mr.

Uhrik disagrees with any aspect of Uhrik v Barata , his and Ms. Litzius’ remedy is to appeal to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. Any other step proposed by Mr. Uhrik is premature. I caution Mr. Uhrik that the Court will not respond to any other materials or correspondence from Mr. Uhrik, except a request to continue the Uhrik v Barata action, pursuant to Uhrik v Terrigno #2 at para 69 and Uhrik v Barata at para 6 . Negative inferences and litigation management steps may result if Mr. Uhrik and Ms.

Litzius do not follow this Court’s instructions. [ 6 ] The steps indicated by Counsel for the Defendants are also at this point premature. Steps forward, including

Summary Judgment and/or CPN7, will be addressed if the Court grants Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius leave to continue the Uhrik v Barata action, post-August 25, 2023. [ 7 ] Mr. Uhrik and Ms. Litzius shall be served this Memorandum of Decision by email to: petertiborjackson@me.com. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 22 nd day of August, 2023.

K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances by Submissions: Tibor Uhrik for the Self-represented Litigants Tibor Uhrik and Lieselotte Litzius Zul Verjee KC for the Defendants Ryan Barata and Carscallen LLP.