Joshi (Re), 2023 ABKB 693

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Joshi (Re), 2023 ABKB 693 Date: 20231207 Docket: 2301 16051 Registry: Calgary Between: Navin Joshi Proposed Litigant _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice D.B. Nixon _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Navin 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. [ 2 ] 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. [ 3 ] Joshi v CIBC #2 provides a detailed set of instructions on what steps Mr. Joshi must take to submit a request to the Alberta Court of King’s Bench to initiate or continue litigation. My office on November 28, 2023 received a one-page document from Mr.

Joshi that was evaluated as a leave request, then rejected in a decision reported as Joshi (Re) , 2023 ABKB 683 [ Joshi (Re) #1 ]. Mr. Joshi’s entire leave request is reproduced in Joshi (Re) #1 at para 3 , but, briefly, Mr. Joshi rejected the outcome in Joshi v CIBC #2 on the basis of alleged Charter breaches, and demanded “reuniting with our eight bank accounts' proceeds”. [ 4 ] In Joshi (Re) #1 I rejected Mr. Joshi’s November 28, 2023 leave to file request on multiple separate and independent bases: 1. Mr. Joshi had not followed the Joshi v CIBC #2 guidelines for a valid leave request.

For example, he had not provided the

proposed court materials he sought to file; 2. Mr. Joshi had provided no case law and/or affidavit evidence to support the assertion that his proposed litigation - whatever it was - had a reasonable basis; 3. the Alberta Court of King’s Bench was bound by the decisions of a superior court so it has no discretion or authority to consider the issues that Mr. Joshi had raised; 4. Mr.

Joshi, a self-represented litigant, has no standing to make his request because Slatter JA in Ubah v Ubah , 2023 ABCA 158 ruled that an abusive candidate litigant must be represented by a lawyer when a constitutional law question is considered in a leave to file application; and 5. Mr. Joshi’s proposed litigation, to the degree it could be evaluated, simply extended Mr. Joshi’s decades long pattern of re- litigating the same issues in multiple courts and jurisdictions. [ 5 ] Mr. Joshi was sent the Joshi (Re) #1 decision by email on Friday December 1, 2023. On Monday December 4, 2023, Mr.

Joshi responded with an email: Leave For Charter Remedy and Legal Action to Recover Bank Deposits ... Please find attached my request for leave regarding two separate matters. Regards, Navin Joshi [ 6 ] Attached were two documents, both dated December 3, 2023. For clarity, I reproduce the body of these documents in their entirety: Document #1 : Dear Associate Chief Justice Nixon: RE: LEAVE FOR CHARTER REMEDY I am requesting leave to seek Charter remedy pursuant to Section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the following Charter infringements:

i) Infringement of s. 6(2)(

a) mobility right; ii) Infringement of s. 15(1) equality right for denying me the equal protection of the law for wrongful dismissal by Justice Rooke, Slatter, Ho and the Court of Appeal of Alberta; iii) Infringement of s. 24(1) for denying me Charter remedy for Charter violations; iv) Infringement of s. 15(1) for unlawfully declaring me a “forum shopper”;

v) Infringement of s. 15(1) for unlawfully applying Rule 3.68; vi) Infringement of s. 15(1) for unlawfully declaring me a “vexatious litigant”. Declaring me a “vexatious litigant” by the Alberta King’s Bench Court was a fruit of poisoned tree and a criminal act, which he accomplished through fraudulent means and infringement of my constitutional rights. An order secured through fraudulent means and in violation of the Constitution cannot be legal. My proceeding for wrongful dismissal was lawful and it was my constitutional right.

Had Justice Rooke not dismissed my wrongful dismissal proceeding through fraudulent means there is no way he could have declared me a “vexatious litigant”. By infringing my s. 6(2)(

a) mobility right and s. 15(1) equality right, he managed to fabricate excuses to declare me a “vexatious litigant”. Had I received the equal protection of common law for wrongful dismissal guaranteed in the Charter , the issue of “vexatious litigant” would not have been an issue. Unfortunately, because of systemic racism, hatred and bias in the administration justice I failed to receive the equal protection of law guaranteed in the Charter , which empowered Justice Rooke to abuse his power and authority to declare me a “vexatious litigant” by staging fraud. It is the fruit of poisoned tree.

Furthermore, had I been treated fairly, impartially and with respect and dignity as our justice system treated the opposing represented parties the situation of “vexatious litigant” would never existed. Therefore, the order declaring me a “vexatious litigant” is illegal and unconstitutional. Since you insist that I have a lawyer to represent me please assign one pursuant to s. 15(1) of the Charter since I don’t have the resources and means to retain one. if you need any further information or documents please let me know. Sincerely,

Navin Joshi [Sic.] Document #2 : Dear Associate Chief Justice Nixon: RE: LEAVE TO CONTINUE LEGAL ACTION TO RECOVER BANK DEPOSITS I am seeking leave to continue legal action to recover my family’s bank deposits which TD Canada Trust and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce unlawfully converted to their own use contrary to the Criminal Code and common law. Unfortunately, this step has become necessary due to systemic racism, hatred and bias in the administration of justice.

My first attempt to recover our money failed because of these evil acts when Judge Higa of the Alberta Provincial Court preferred to accept the banks’ fraudulent claim that there was no name in the bank passbooks which the two banks had produced, issued and administered in accordance with its policy to exclude client names from bank passbooks to avoid identity theft.

Despite arguing that it was a security feature employed by the banks and that the banks were not stupid enough to exclude client names from all eight bank passbooks, Judge Higa flagrantly and maliciously disregarded my valid, plausible and intelligent argument in favour of preferring the banks’ fraudulent claim which he considered as “putting the best foot forward”. Thus justice was perverted and theft committed against my family when Judge Higa unlawfully and maliciously dismissed my proceeding on

summary judgment knowing that there was still an issue of debt owed by the two banks and only my family had the legal right to reunite with their money as the holders of eight bank passbooks. Judge Higa’s unlawful and malicious actions aided the two banks to commit theft, false pretence and fraud in the court of law. My family has legal right to reunite with their bank deposits. Please provide us leave to proceed with civil action and if you insist that we have a legal counsel then please assign one.

Sincerely, Navin Joshi [Sic.] [ 7 ] Joshi (Re) #1 at paras 5-12 provided a detailed review of the legal principles applied when this Court grants or denies leave to persons subject to court access restrictions. Joshi (Re) #1 also conducted a detailed analysis of why the November 28, 2023 leave to file request was denied. As is apparent from Mr. Joshi’s December 3, 2023 documents, he has completely ignored that law and the Court’s prior determinations and instructions. [ 8 ] In the interest of judicial economy, I will not repeat the detailed review and analysis in Joshi (Re) #1 .

The narrative of Document #1, which is outlined above, exhibits the same defects identified in Joshi (Re) #1 . Further, Mr. Joshi is ignoring that he is prohibited from making the same leave request multiple times: see Joshi v CIBC #2 at para 28 (4). [ 9 ] The narrative of Document #2, which is outlined above, has the same issues. As best as I can evaluate, this might be an attempt by Mr. Joshi to appeal an undated and unidentified decision of the Alberta Court of Justice by Higa J. If so, this Court requires the published decision or a transcript of the oral decision that Mr. Joshi seeks this court review.

Failure to supply that decision is fatal to Mr. Joshi’s leave request: Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 . Also, Mr. Joshi in Document #2 appears to be purporting to act on behalf of other members of his family, which would be prohibited and abusive “busybody” litigation. [ 10 ] Again, this Court cannot make meaningful responses to Mr. Joshi’s proposed litigation, that is otherwise blocked because: (

i) this Court lacks jurisdiction; (ii) Mr. Joshi does not have standing; and (iii) it is an abuse of the Court and its processes. The onus was on Mr. Joshi to establish his proposed litigation had merit. He did not do so. Leave is denied for Documents #1 and #2 on multiple independent bases. This result is final: Joshi v CIBC #2 at para 28 (4). [ 11 ] In Joshi (Re) #1 I directed Mr. Joshi that if he disagreed with Joshi (Re) #1 , he should seek leave from the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Joshi did not take that step. The same instruction applies to this current rejection of Mr.

Joshi’s materials. [ 12 ] I also in Joshi (Re) #1 at para 22 cautioned Mr. Joshi that, if he abused the Court’s leave processes, he could be subject to penalties. Mr. Joshi ignored that warning in the most blatant way possible. On that basis I order that Mr. Joshi pay the Clerk of the Court an Alberta Rules of Court , Alta Reg 124/2010, Rule 10.49(1) penalty of $5,000, forthwith. [ 13 ] If Mr. Joshi continues to further abuse the Court’s leave process, he should expect additional and increasing penalties. Once again, I recommend Mr. Joshi immediately consult with legal counsel.

His current litigation trajectory will not bring him any benefits. [ 14 ] The Court will prepare the Order that gives effect to this Memorandum of Decision. Mr. Joshi shall be served this Memorandum of Decision and the corresponding Order by email to the address that Mr. Joshi used to submit his December 3, 2023 Documents #1 and #2: ntjoshi@gmail.com.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 7 th day of December, 2023. D.B. Nixon A.C.J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Navin Joshi Self-represented Litigant