Rana v Rana, 2023 ABKB 576

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Rana v Rana, 2023 ABKB 576 Date: 20231012 Docket: 1501 02369 Registry: Calgary Between: Salim Rana Plaintiff - and - Zahir Rana, Attorney for Gulzar Rana Defendant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Salim Rana (Mr. S. Rana) is in a dispute with his brother, Zahir Rana (Mr. Z. Rana) over Mr. Z. Rana’s conduct of his mother Gulzar’s affairs: Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 455 ( Rana Setting Trial Decision ). Mr. S.

Rana is a self-represented litigant, while Mr. Z. Rana has been represented by counsel throughout this litigation. After many years of pre-trial applications and decisions, and two and half years of case management, on June 20, 2022 Devlin J issued Reasons and an Order to Set Trial of the inter-sibling dispute: Rana Setting Trial Decision . The Rana v Rana trial is currently scheduled for February 5-9, 2024. Throughout the protracted process that led to the June 20, 2022 Reasons, Mr. S. Rana engaged in numerous unsuccessful applications and collateral proceedings to the

central dispute. That conduct led to indefinite and global court access restriction gatekeeping pursuant to Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 in a Memorandum of Decision reported as Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 139 , then confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Alberta: Rana v Rana , 2022 ABCA 172 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40231 (9 March 2023); Rana v Rana , 2022 ABCA 378 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40580 (30 March 2023). [ 2 ] Mr. S. Rana has been consistently both persistent and aggressive in his conduct of this litigation. For example, Mr. S.

Rana has sought leave from the Supreme Court of Canada on no less than 25 occasions. In 23 instances, Mr. S. Rana’s leave application was dismissed. Two leave to appeal applications remain outstanding. The Court of King’s Bench of Alberta and the Court of Appeal of Alberta have repeatedly concluded that Mr. S. Rana engages in futile, abusive litigation, and does so to inflict harm on his brother and those affiliated with his brother. [ 3 ] As previously noted, the trial of the Rana v Rana dispute was set for February 5-9, 2024.

In the Rana Setting Trial Decision at para 26, Devlin J ordered as a precondition of that trial: ... (Mr. S. Rana) shall pay into Court the full then-outstanding amount of all Orders for costs against him in favour of the defendants 90 days prior to trial, failing which his action and application will be dismissed and the caveat removed. Nothing in this provision precludes the payment or collection of costs in the ordinary costs in the period leading up to trial ... At that time the unpaid costs owed by Mr. S. Rana to Mr. Z.

Rana were “... over $90,000 ...”: Rana Setting Trial Decision at para 21. [ 4 ] Subsequently, the Court of Appeal of Alberta in Rana v Rana , 2023 ABCA 112 refused to grant leave to appeal to Mr. S. Rana, and, instead, granted the cross-application of Mr. Z.

Rana “... to prohibit further applications in the Court of Appeal unless all Court of Appeal cost awards in the amount of ($7,932.00) are paid in full.” Veldhuis JA stated: ... when litigants choose the public court process, they are bound by the remedies imposed by the court, including the payment of costs by the unsuccessful party to the successful party. [ 5 ] In early 2023 Mr. S. Rana sought leave on two separate issues generally related to the Rana v Rana dispute. First, Mr. S. Rana sought this Court waive a requirement in the Rana Setting Trial Decision that Mr. S.

Rana pay into court security for all outstanding costs awards in relation to the Rana v Rana litigation, 90 days prior to the trial. Devlin J ruled non-compliance would terminate Mr. S. Rana’s litigation: “... failing which his action and application will be dismissed and the caveat removed.”: Rana Setting Trial Decision at para 26. In a Memorandum of Decision reported as Rana v Rana , 2023 ABKB 295 , I rejected Mr. S.

Rana’s leave request as re-litigation of issues already decided by the Court of Appeal of Alberta and the Supreme Court of Canada, and imposed a $5,000 penalty pursuant to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 . [ 6 ] Next, Mr. S. Rana sought leave to pursue an application to visit his mother, in parallel to a visit on terms granted by Justice Devlin in Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 440 ( Rana Visit Decision ). Mr. S.

Rana did not conduct the visit authorized in the Rana Visit Decision , but, instead, unsuccessfully appealed the Rana Visit Decision to the Court of Appeal of Alberta ( Rana v Rana , 2022 ABCA 270 ) and Supreme Court of Canada ( Rana v Rana (30 March 2023), Ottawa 40474 (SCC)). I granted Mr. S. Rana permission to submit a revised visit application that removed certain collateral attack arguments that had been rejected by the Court of Appeal of Alberta and the Supreme Court of Canada: Rana v Rana , 2023 ABKB 324 ( Rana Second Visit Decision ). Mr.

Rana was required to pay a $2,500 penalty pursuant to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court for abusive re-litigation of settled issues, and $10,000 in security for costs. [ 7 ] The same day as the Rana Second Visit Decision was issued, May 30, 2023, Mr. S. Rana sent my office the following email: I just received the decision. This truly is a joke. I had drafted the attached letter to send it out and received your email right before sending it out. I have decided to send it and stop wasting anytime you this court. I have already drafted a federal lawsuit against the Albert Ombudsmen for damages.

Now i will file actions again the Province of Alberta and the Government of Canada. I have spent a lot of time keeping a record of your Bias and unjust Rulings. You require money before I can see my mother? You idiots already have $10,000 of my money for this! I’ll cancel my trip to Cowland. (Sic.) The “attached letter” essentially complained that the Rana Second Visit Decision was not issued in a timely enough manner. [ 8 ] Since Mr. S. Rana had now declared that he would not comply with directions of this Court to manage Mr. S.

Rana’s persistent, abusive litigation, the conditional leave to file granted in the Rana Second Visit Decision was dismissed: Rana v Rana , 2023 ABKB 382 ( Rana Costs Decision ). [ 9 ] At this point no question remained as to whether Mr. S. Rana’s lawsuit was being conducted in a valid manner, given his stated intent to now “forum shop” ( Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 679-685 ) his litigation to a Canadian Court where Mr. S.

Rana is not subject to litigation management steps, and there target government actors who are third parties to his inter-sibling dispute: Rana Costs Decision at para 10 . [ 10 ] In a Memorandum of Decision issued on June 26, 2023 ( Rana Costs Decision ) I made the following conclusions ( Rana Costs Decision at para 11 ): 1) Mr. S. Rana’s litigation has consumed an inordinate and unwarranted volume of Alberta court resources; 2) Mr. S. Rana, a non-resident of Canada, had openly declared he had no intention of pursuing the Rana v Rana lawsuit in

compliance with Alberta court processes and Court Orders; and 3) the pre-existing conclusions of Devlin J and Veldhuis J that Mr. S. Rana should be required to pay outstanding costs amounts as a precondition of litigation should now apply immediately as a precondition of Mr. S. Rana’s lawsuit against his brother. [ 11 ] The Rana Costs Decision at paras 12-13 set out the following process: ... I, therefore, conclude that Mr. S. Rana should be required to pay outstanding litigation costs on a clear timeline as a precondition to the February 5-9, 2024 trial: 1) Counsel for Mr. Z.

Rana shall by July 31, 2023 prepare and serve on the Court and Mr. S. Rana an Affidavit of outstanding unpaid costs awards against Mr. S. Rana in this matter and related proceedings, including awards made by the Court of Appeal of Alberta and Supreme Court of Canada; and 2) Mr. S. Rana shall pay the total of those unpaid costs to Mr. Z. Rana by August 31, 2023. ... If Mr. S. Rana fails to make that payment, then: 1) the Rana v Rana , Action No. 1501 02369 is struck out; 2) the February 5-9, 2024 trial is cancelled and those trial dates released; 3) the caveat filed by Mr. S.

Rana on his mother’s home is removed; and 4) any funds paid by Mr. S. Rana that are held by the Clerk of the Court as security for costs are to be applied to all costs proven by Mr. Z. Rana. [ 12 ] On July 18, 2023, Counsel for Mr. Z. Rana filed an Affidavit of Michelle Rubianto, sworn July 17, 2023, that reported Mr. S. Rana’s unpaid costs awards, that total $7,932 (Court of Appeal of Alberta) and $93,710.11 (Court of King’s Bench of Alberta). Mr. S. Rana also had $24,000 in unpaid penalties pursuant to r 10.49(1) of the Alberta Rules of Court .

I accept these amounts as the quantum of outstanding costs. [ 13 ] On September 5, 2023, Counsel for Mr. Z. Rana provided by letter to my office further affidavit evidence that Mr. S. Rana had not paid the outstanding costs, in compliance with Rana Costs Decision at paras 12-13 . Counsel for Mr. Z. Rana argues that the consequences set out in Rana Costs Decision at para 13 should now follow. [ 14 ] I agree. The Rana v Rana lawsuit is struck out, the February 5-9, 2024 trial is cancelled, and the caveat on the Ranas’ mother’s home shall be removed.

My understanding is that the Clerk of the Court holds $35,000 in security for costs that has been paid into court by Mr. S. Rana. I order the Clerk of the Court release these funds to Mr. Z. Rana as partial payment of the outstanding costs owed by Mr. S. Rana. [ 15 ] This leaves two remaining issues: 1) Since Mr. Z. Rana has been entirely successful in his defence, what is the appropriate final litigation costs that should be awarded in favour of Mr. Z. Rana? 2) Whether the pre-leave costs payment requirement set by Veldhuis JA in Rana v Rana , 2023 ABCA 112 should be extended to Mr. S.

Rana’s candidate litigation before the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta as well, in some manner? [ 16 ] Both of the Parties are instructed to submit written argument and affidavit evidence, if desired, following this timeline: 1) argument and affidavit evidence by November 3, 2023; and 2) response and rebuttal affidavit evidence by November 24, 2023. [ 17 ] 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. S. Rana, if Mr. S. Rana disagrees with this result then Mr. S.

Rana may seek a remedy at the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 18 ] Counsel for Mr. Z. Rana shall prepare the Order giving effect to this Memorandum of Decision. Mr. S. Rana’s approval of that Order is dispensed with pursuant to the Alberta Rules of Court . Mr. S. Rana shall be served this Memorandum of Decision and corresponding Order by email. I direct a copy of this Memorandum of Decision is provided to Counsel for Mr. Z. Rana. 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 Written Submission: Harsh Sisodia – No appearance JSS Barristers Salim Rana – No Appearance