Bains v Day, 2023 ABKB 569

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Bains v Day, 2023 ABKB 569 Date: 20231012 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 _______________________________________________________ I. Scheduling and Process for Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 Application [ 1 ] This Memorandum of Decision responds to litigation conducted by Dr.

Jagdev Singh Bains (Dr. Bains), his wife Dr. Sahib Prem Kaur (Dr. Kaur), and their three children. These 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 ] This Memorandum of Decision follows on a July 6, 2023 Memorandum of Decision reported as Bains v Day , 2023 ABKB 401 ( Bains v Day #2 ). Bains v Day #2 which addresses several issues: 1) In June 2022, Associate Chief Justice Rooke heard an Application by the Defendants in the motor vehicle litigation that Dr. Bains should be made subject to Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 court access restrictions.

Associate Chief Justice Rooke deferred deciding that issue until Dr. Bains' motor vehicle litigation was completed. Associate Chief Justice Rooke has since retired. In Bains v Day #2 at para 17 I took jurisdiction to conduct the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process. 2) I rejected a request by counsel for the Defendants in the Kaur v Adam , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2301 00251 for case management: Bains v Day #2 at para 14 .

I concluded the more efficient approach to conduct litigation management of the Kaur v Adam proceeding was via the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process already underway: Bains v Day #2 at para 15 . 3) I imposed interim court access restrictions on Dr. Bains, and Dr. Kaur, and their children Sifatjot Kaur Bains, Sukhmani Bains, and Paaras Bains: Bains v Day #2 at para 16 . [ 3 ] In Bains v Day #2 at para 18 I indicated I would give further directions on the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process once Justice Yamauchi issued his Memorandum of Decision in the original three lawsuits by Dr. Bains.

That decision, Bains v Adam , 2023 ABKB 491 ( Bains v Adam #4 ), issued on August 28, 2023. Succinctly, all of Dr. Bains’ claims were dismissed. The only remaining potential issue in this Court is costs, that Justice Yamauchi indicated in Bains v Adam #4 at para 317 would proceed by written submissions. [ 4 ] I now proceed to set out the steps to complete the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process. The Court will follow its usual practice of conducting court access restriction gatekeeping proceedings on a document-only basis: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at para 565 .

Extensive materials and argument were submitted prior to the June 2022 hearing before Associate Chief

Justice Rooke. For clarity, I conclude that the Defendants in the Kaur v Adam , Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2301 00251 have standing to participate, if they elect to do so. [ 5 ] Given that significant events and developments have occurred since that original hearing, I conclude the parties should be permitted to submit additional and updated argument and affidavit evidence: 1) The Defendants in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action Nos. 1901 01056, 1901 03639, 1901 06857, 2001 12996, and 2301 00251 have until November 3, 2023 to submit to my office written argument and/or affidavit evidence concerning:

a) whether Dr. Bains, Dr. Kaur, Sifatjot Kaur Bains, Sukhmani Bains, and Paaras Bains should be subject to court access restrictions pursuant to Judicature Act ss 23-23.1, and,

b) if so, what should be the scope of those court access restrictions. 2) Dr. Bains, Dr. Kaur, Sifatjot Kaur Bains, Sukhmani Bains, and Paaras Bains have until November 24, 2023 to file written argument and/or affidavit evidence in response. 3) The Defendants in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action Nos. 1901 01056, 1901 03639, 1901 06857, 2001 12996, and 2301 00251 have until December 15, 2023 to submit to my office rebuttal arguments. [ 6 ] Participants in this process may make reference to and rely upon materials submitted in relation to the June 2022 hearing.

Upon completion of this timeline the Court will issue written reasons. [ 7 ] The interim court access restrictions imposed in Bains v Day #2 at para 16 will continue until the Judicature Act ss 23-32.1 process is completed. II. Communications Restrictions on Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur [ 8 ] Starting on September 19, 2023 Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur have repeatedly emailed the Administrative Justices of the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta: September 19, 2023 - Dr.

Bains emailed the Judicial Assistant of Chief Justice Moreau and demanded I confirm I had signed a January 11, 2023 court Order and that was “... an authentic Court Order ...”. This was “... very urgent and serious ...”. September 19, 2023 - Dr. Kaur also emailed the Judicial Assistant of Chief Justice Moreau alleging: ... This order is 100% forged, fabricated, and fraudulently drafted with the intent to defraud Dr. Bains and further intimidate, harass and torture him which all matters are being taken up in the Criminal Court via Private Information in an affidavit.

Further Justice Neilsen has no jurisdiction in Calgary Court Centre. ... September 20, 2023 - I responded by email, confirmed that the signature on the January 11, 2023 Order was mine, and directed Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur to the Court of Appeal of Alberta if they disagree with that Order and the corresponding Bains v Day , 2022 ABKB 844 Memorandum of Decision. I also cautioned Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur that any correspondence with the Court must be copied to other parties, which had not happened with either of the September 19, 2023 emails.

I warned that email communications to the Court may be blocked if email communications were abused or made without notice. September 20, 2023 – Dr. Bains by email sent a letter signed by both Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur to Chief Justice Moreau. This correspondence was not copied to opposing parties. This letter complains that the Dr. Bains motor vehicle trial conducted by Justice Yamauchi was unauthorized and in breach of the Alberta Rules of Court . Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur allege the trial was “... an illegal, secret and mysterious trial as no outsider was allowed into this trial ...”.

The letter continues to complain that the conduct of Justice Yamauchi was “misleading” and “deceitful”, and that Dr. Bains’ rights as a self-represented litigant “... were trampled over ...”. [ 9 ] Separate to this line of communications, Dr. Bains has also made written criminal complaints to the Calgary Police Service against multiple lawyers, defendants, and witnesses involved in the motor vehicle litigation, and Justice Yamauchi and former Associate Chief Justice Rooke.

I became aware of these activities following a September 22, 2023 letter from the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action Nos. 1901 06857, 1901 03639, 1901 01056, and 2301 00251 Defendants. Subsequently, Justice Yamauchi forwarded to my office related email correspondence he had received from Dr. Bains on October 6 and 10, 2023. [ 10 ] I will not comment further on the substance of those criminal misconduct complaints since that may be relevant to the upcoming Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 analysis. The Calgary Police Service on August 21-22, 2023 concluded that Dr.

Bains should advance his complaint in Alberta courts, and the police would not be taking any steps. [ 11 ] I will, however, discuss in more detail the communications directed by Dr. Bains to the former trial judge. In his October 6, 2023 email, Dr. Bains states Justice Yamauchi is guilty of fraud against Dr. Bains and his family.

He continues that Justice Yamauchi has committed crimes against humanity, then, unilaterally, declares that unless Justice Yamauchi responds by October 13, 2023, that Justice Yamauchi has admitted the alleged illegalities, that “... shall be used as evidence against you in the Criminal Court of Canada and to the Attorney General of Canada and this shall prove and confirm your guilt.” The October 6, 2023 email implies that Dr. Bains and his family are intending to initiate a Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46 ss 504, 507.1 private information process. [ 12 ] Subsequently, on October 10, 2023, Dr.

Bains by email repeated his demand: “Your time to reply us remains the same as in my last email that is by this Friday.” (sic). [ 13 ] Dr. Bains has a long-standing pattern of inappropriate communications with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta. Dr. Kaur

has now joined that pattern. [ 14 ] The recent communications from Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur are not legitimate litigation activities. Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur did not follow my instructions to copy other parties anytime they correspond with the Court. Second, the complaints and allegations that Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur have made about the proceedings before Justice Yamauchi and the January 11, 2023 Order are attempts to dispute and/or re-litigate matters that are decided. If Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur wish to pursue these complaints, those allegations should be directed to the Court of Appeal of Alberta. Dr. Bains and Dr.

Kaur were given that instruction in Bains v Day #2 at para 20 and in my September 20, 2023 email. They ignored that, and instead attempted to circumvent my instructions. [ 15 ] The September 20, 2023 letter by Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur represents a serious form of litigation misconduct - “judge shopping” – in which a litigant seeks to circumvent the authority and jurisdiction of a judge by directing their correspondence and/or litigation to a different judge of the same Court.

Judge shopping is a recognized strategy used by bad conduct litigants to evade litigation, and an abuse of the Court that merits litigation and litigant management: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 307 , 677-678. As Chief Justice Moreau observed in Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 at paras 18-28 , attempts to access her Office to bypass other Justices of this Court are a basis to reject litigation. I conclude that is exactly what has happened here. [ 16 ] Now Dr.

Bains has escalated his inappropriate email communications yet a further step, alleging that the former trial justice in the motor vehicle proceedings is a criminal, and should be brought to justice. While Dr. Bains has a right to communicate with law enforcement, and to use the Criminal Code private information process, he has no right to make demands of any Justice of this Court. Furthermore, I note that Dr.

Bains’ claim that he can unilaterally impose a criminal proceeding outcome based on silence is a notorious Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA) ( Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571 ) strategy, a “foisted unilateral agreement”, where silence is purported to have a binding legal effect: Meads v Meads at paras 447-528 . What is particularly astonishing is that what Dr. Bains has done, in his October 6 and 10, 2023 emails, is to purportedly unilaterally reverse the

section 11(

d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ( The Constitution Act , 1982,

Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK) , 1982, c 11 ( Charter ) presumption of innocence. [ 17 ] I draw a strong negative inference from Dr. Bains’ recent email communications to Justice Yamauchi. As Justice Moldaver observed in R v Tatton , 2015 SCC 33 , Canadian law incorporates “... the common sense inference that a person intends the natural consequences of his or her actions, one can typically infer intent from the performance of the act. ...”. I conclude that Dr.

Bains making an illegal threat is intended to intimidate and harass his now former trial justice by inappropriate email communications and foisted unilateral demands. [ 18 ] Dr. Bains’ and Dr. Kaur’s expanding abusive email communications mean further litigant management steps are appropriate. Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur are prohibited from communicating with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta by email. That restriction does not apply if Dr. Bains and/or Dr. Kaur are represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta, or another person authorized to represent Dr. Bains and/or Dr.

Kaur in the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, pursuant to the Legal Professions Act , RSA 2000, c L-8 . For clarity, this prohibition includes filing by email. [ 19 ] I stress to Dr. Bains and Dr. Kaur that at present the only subject that is a valid basis to communicate with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta is either: 1) costs in the motor vehicle actions ( Bains v Adam #4 at para 317 ), and 2) the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process scheduled above in

Part I. [ 20 ] If Dr. Bains and/or Dr. Kaur do not follow this direction the Court may take additional litigation and litigant management steps, including more stringent communications structures. III. Conclusion [ 21 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this Memorandum of Decision. Dr. Bains, Dr. 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 Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action Nos. 1901 01056, 1901 03639, 1901 06857, 2001 12996, and 2301 00251 [ 22 ] I very strongly recommend that Dr. Bains, Dr. Kaur, and their children immediately seek advice from legal counsel. [ 23 ] In their September 22, 2023 letter, Counsel for the Action Nos. 1901 06857, 1901 03639, 1901 01056, and 2301 00251 Defendants indicate they seek to strike out the Statement of Claim in Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2301 00251, and obtain a permanent Restraining Order against Dr.

Bains, Dr. Kaur, and their children in relation to defendants and expert witnesses. The striking out Application will be conducted, if necessary, after the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process is complete. I instruct that argument and evidence concerning the proposed permanent Restraining Order is included with the Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 submissions in the process indicated above in

Part I. [ 24 ] I acknowledge that Dr. Bains, Dr. Kaur and their 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 or his family members seek to challenge steps imposed in this Memorandum of Decision, then their remedy is with the Court of Appeal of Alberta. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 12 th day of October, 2023.

K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances by Correspondence: Jagdev Singh Bains, Sahib Prem Kaur Self-represented litigants.