Joshi (Re), 2023 ABKB 683

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Joshi (Re), 2023 ABKB 683 Date: 20231201 Docket: 2301 16051 Registry: Calgary Between: Navin Joshi Proposed Litigant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] My office on November 28, 2023 received a one-page document from Navin Joshi [Mr. Joshi]. Mr.

Joshi is subject to court access restrictions imposed in a January 21, 2022 decision of Rooke ACJ, reported as Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 2022 ABQB 66 [ Joshi v CIBC #2 ]. Those court access restrictions require that Mr. Joshi obtain permission from the court - “leave” - prior to initiating or continuing litigation in the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. Mr. Joshi appealed Joshi v CIBC #2 , but leave was denied: 2022 ABCA 137 . Ho JA concluded that Mr. Joshi’s appeal raised no serious legal issues and was hopeless. [ 2 ] During the last couple of years, Mr.

Joshi had two lawsuits before the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. Both were struck out as abusive hopeless proceedings ( Joshi v Saskatchewan , 2021 ABQB 317 ). This was confirmed on appeal ( Joshi v Saskatchewan , 2022 ABCA 372 ), and the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave and awarded costs against Mr. Joshi ( Joshi v Saskatchewan (13 April 2023), Ottawa 40514 (SCC). [ 3 ] Mr. Joshi’s November 28, 2023 document is titled: “Re: Leave to Commence Proceeding” and states in full:

Please grant me the leave to proceed with my application for Charter remedy brought under Section 24(1) and 52(1) of the Constitution. On January 27, 2022, I was wrongfully declared a "vexatious" litigant by Justice Rooke when he considered me "non-legal" resident of Alberta and then declared me a "forum shopper" to apply Rule 3.68 to dismiss my proceedings for Charter remedy and wrongful dismissal. My proceedings for Charter remedy and wrongful dismissal were lawful and legal. None of my proceedings were vexatious or frivolous. Wrongful dismissal is an actionable wrong under common law.

A claim is vexatious when there is no lawful ground or purpose. My proceedings for Charter remedy and wrongful dismissal had lawful purpose. Despite being unsuccessful my proceedings were legal and lawful. I should have never been declared a "vexatious" litigant simply because of my recent move to Alberta. It infringed of my s. 6(2)(

a) mobility right and s. 15(1) equality right. I should not have been denied justice and considered a forum shopper and "vexatious" litigant simply because of my Alberta residency. In fact the Calgary King's Bench Court was the closest and most appropriate forum to meet the ends of justice. Since the vexatious litigant order my family and I have been denied the equal protection of the law from reuniting with our eight bank accounts' proceeds and treated differently, harshly and adversely by the Alberta justice system. I have a constitutional right to seek Charter remedy for the infringements of my Charter rights.

Previously, I had only sued the Attorney General of Canada for Charter remedy for s. 15(1) infringement. Upon leave I will promptly serve the respondents with court documents referred to under paragraph (

e) of the order and diligently prosecute the proceeding. [Sic.] [ 4 ] Given the above information, I am treating Mr. Joshi’s correspondence as a request to grant leave to take some litigation steps, pursuant to the court access restrictions imposed in Joshi v CIBC #2 at para 28 . II.

Test for Leave to Initiate Litigation [ 5 ] The courts have set out rules to deal with litigation matters. “... [A] person subject to court access control is presumed to engage in illegitimate litigation unless the Court is satisfied otherwise. ...”: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at para 19 , aff’d 2018 ABCA 111 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019). [ 6 ] Permission to initiate litigation or continue stayed litigation both test the merit of Court activities on the same standard.

A person subject to court access restrictions must: 1) establish reasonable grounds for the litigation; and 2) depose fully and completely as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding. [ Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 27; VWW v Wasylyshen , 2013 ABQB 327 at para 42 , aff’d 2014 ABCA 121 .] [ 7 ] This threshold, which must be established on a balance of probabilities, is not a high one. In many ways, it parallels the test for

Summary Judgment: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 26. The person subject to Court access leave restrictions is expected to put his or her “best foot forward” to establish the basis to initiate or continue an Action: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 26-27. [ 8 ] In a parallel context, the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Gichuru v Purewal , 2023 BCCA 345 stressed a broad and contextual evaluation of the reasonableness of proposed litigation.

To determine whether a leave request is reasonable, a court may take into account the purposes of the specific court access restrictions (para 34), economic aspects of the proposed litigation (paras 40, 49), failure to pay costs (para 47-48), and the potential the justice system will be misused (para 46). [ 9 ] The documents necessary to seek leave are an affidavit to provide evidence, and, in the case of a new Action, an Application, an Appeal, or other litigation step, a copy of the proposed initiating filing: e.g., Re Moore , 2018 ABQB 261 ; Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 . [ 10 ] Leave may be granted in part: Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 ; Belway v Lalande-Weber , 2017 ABCA 108 at para 10 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37708 (21 December 2017). [ 11 ] Leave submissions to initiate or continue litigation may also be rejected: 1) where the materials do not satisfy the criteria set out in the Court Access Restriction Order ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38267 (31 January 2019); Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38266 (31 January 2019); Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta v Drover , 2021 ABQB 511 ; Richardson v MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 274 ); 2) if the submissions exhibit indicia of abusive litigation ( ET v Calgary Catholic School District No 1 , 2017 ABCA 349 at para 12 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38081 (8 November 2018); Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Trinity Place Foundation of Alberta v Templanza , 2019 ABQB 45 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ; Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP , 2019 ABQB 396 ; Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2021 ABQB 208 ; Knutson (Re) , 2021 ABQB 367 ; McMunn v Hok , 2021 ABQB 550 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2021 ABQB 985 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40284 (4 May 2023); Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 79 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2022 ABQB 97 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40284 (4 May 2023); Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 111 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 114 ; Fiset v Feeney , 2022 ABQB 211 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; Richardson v

MacDonald , 2022 ABQB 274 ; Royal Bank of Canada v Anderson , 2022 ABQB 354 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2022 ABQB 498 ; Bissky v MacDonald , 2022 ABKB 774 ; Hayden v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 2023 ABKB 100 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 111 ; Rana v Rana , 2023 ABKB 295 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2023 ABKB 384 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 388 ; Ubah v Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta , 2023 ABKB 390 ; R v Tican , 2023 ABKB 422 ; Knutson (Re) , 2023 ABKB 589 ; Templanza (Re) , 2023 ABKB 645 ); 3) where the abusive litigant refuses to provide the proposed filing ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ); 4) where the abusive litigant provides false information or fails to provide necessary information ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ; Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 114 ; Bissky v MacDonald , 2022 ABKB 774 ); 5) where the abusive litigant fails to provide materials that are required to evaluate the proposed litigation step, such as a transcript of a proceeding proposed for appeal ( Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2021 ABQB 985 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 40284 (4 May 2023); Rana v Rana , 2022 ABQB 111 ; Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; R v Tican , 2023 ABKB 422 ; Carter v Horizon Housing Society , 2023 ABKB 558 ); 6) where the Court has no jurisdiction over the matter ( Hayden v Alberta Health Services , 2022 ABQB 335 ; Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 111 ); and 7) where the individual subject to court access restrictions does not have standing to make the leave request ( Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABKB 388 ). [ 12 ] There is no appeal to the Court of Appeal of Alberta of a decision to deny leave to initiate or continue litigation: r 14.5(4) of the Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010 ; Re Gauthier , 2018 ABCA 14 at para 8 .

A litigant who is denied leave to initiate or continue litigation by the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta may, however, seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada. III. Analysis [ 13 ] I reject Mr. Joshi’s leave request on multiple independent bases. First, Mr. Joshi has not provided the application materials detailed in Joshi v CIBC #2 at para 28 (2). For example, Mr. Joshi has not provided the Court with a proposed filing to evaluate (para 28(2)(iii)(b)) or provided the required history of relevant earlier litigation (para 28(2)(iii)(d)). Mr.

Joshi’s failure to follow the detailed procedure set in Joshi v CIBC #2 is fatal to this leave request. Candidly, it is not clear from Mr. Joshi’s November 28, 2023 document what he specifically seeks to do, so whether or not the proposed litigation is reasonable cannot be evaluated. [ 14 ] Second, Mr. Joshi has not provided information that is a sufficient basis to establish his proposed litigation - whatever it is - has reasonable grounds. He makes many allegations, but provides nothing to support his allegations. There is no affidavit evidence and no cited case law.

He only provides statements that declare certain injuries and allegations. Even basic information, such as who Mr. Joshi seeks to sue, is entirely missing. [ 15 ] Third, to the degree that Mr. Joshi’s proposed litigation can be identified, he apparently seeks to undo the outcomes of prior litigation. For instance, he complains that he “... was wrongfully declared a “vexatious litigant ...” by Justice Rooke ...”. That is a direct collateral attack on Joshi v CIBC #2 . This Court has no jurisdiction to re-examine that decision. Mr.

Joshi subsequently appealed, and in Joshi v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce , 2022 ABCA 137 at para 29 , Justice Ho concluded the court access restrictions imposed by Rooke ACJ on Mr. Joshi were appropriate: ... Mr. Joshi’s actions over the past years fit within several of those examples, including persistently bringing proceedings to determine an issue that has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, using previously raised grounds and issues in subsequent proceedings inappropriately, taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions, and failing to pay cost awards imposed on him.

Faced with evidence of such behaviour, it was reasonable for ACJ Rooke to declare Mr. Joshi a vexatious litigant and impose permanent court access restrictions upon him . [Emphasis added.] [ 16 ] Justice Ho’s decision is binding on this Court. This Court cannot relitigate this issue. That is a further reason Mr. Joshi’s leave request must be denied. [ 17 ] Fourth, to the degree Mr. Joshi’s claim can be evaluated, he is seeking some kind of Charter remedy.

In Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABCA 158 , Slatter JA ruled that when a constitutional law question is considered in a leave to file application that the abusive candidate litigant must be represented by a lawyer. Mr. Joshi is self-represented, which means he has no standing to bring this leave to litigate request. [ 18 ] Finally, while the November 28, 2023 materials provide little explanation of what Mr. Joshi seeks to do, it is obvious is that Mr. Joshi has again rejected the conclusions of the Federal, Saskatchewan, and Ontario courts.

Each of those courts have already repeatedly responded to and rejected the same claims and arguments made by Mr. Joshi. Some of the matters Mr. Joshi complains about trace back to the late 1980s. Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Joshi v CIBC #2 at para 19 described Mr. Joshi’s litigation conduct this way: 1. Mr. Joshi never abandons a dispute, but rather re-litigates again and again. Though Mr. Joshi does re-frame his claims and arguments to a certain degree, I and other judges have concluded those differences are only camouflage to disguise what Mr. Joshi knows is improper and illegal re-litigation. Mr.

Joshi will simply not accept unfavourable outcomes, and the application of Canadian legal principles. 2. Mr. Joshi’s pattern of forum shopping, where he shifts between jurisdictions to evade litigation management and the termination

of his abusive, baseless lawsuits. 3. Mr. Joshi does not even attempt to rationalize or explain his misconduct on a legal basis, but, instead, attributes judicial criticism to a lack of capacity to comprehend the bases for his actions. He gives courts no credit in reading through his attempts at abusive litigation by his claim that his litigation is “too complex” for courts to understand. Mr. Joshi intentionally, or naively, but falsely appears to assert that he is the expert legal authority who has determined his lawsuits are valid, rather than Canadian courts and tribunals. 4. Mr.

Joshi appears to believe he does nothing wrong when he inflicts expense and consumes defendant, judicial, and tribunal resources, and yet fails to pay costs when his claims are not accepted. He claims that he is the victim, and that those he sues, including judges, are wrongdoers. [ 19 ] As indicated in Gichuru v Purewal , when viewed in the context of Mr. Joshi’s overall litigation record, whatever the November 28, 2023 correspondence seeks to achieve is simply an extension of Mr. Joshi’s decades-old abusive litigation patterns. That is a further reason to reject Mr. Joshi’s leave request. IV.

Conclusion [ 20 ] Mr. Joshi’s leave request is denied on multiple independent bases. This result is final: Joshi v CIBC #2 at para 28 (4). [ 21 ] Pursuant to my obligations to provide information to self-represented persons ( Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 ) concerning their litigation options, if Mr. Joshi disagrees with this Memorandum of Decision, then his remedy is to seek leave to appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. [ 22 ] I caution Mr. Joshi that this Court may impose penalties if he abuses the Court’s leave processes. I strongly recommend Mr.

Joshi consult with a lawyer prior to submitting any further leave requests to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. [ 23 ] Mr. Joshi shall be served this Memorandum of Decision by email to the address on the November 28, 2023 document: ntjoshi@gmail.com. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 1 st day of December, 2023. D.B. Nixon A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Navin Joshi for the Self-Represented Litigant