The Plaintiff, Ubah, had initiated numerous claims in “all three tiers of Alberta Courts” and the Federal Court. In February 2019, Rooke A.C.J. struck Ubah’s Statement of Claim against Canadian Natural Resources Limited (“CNRL”) and others pursuant to Rule 3.68 and Civil Practice Note #7 (“CPN7”). At the time, Rooke A.C.J. noted that the CPN7 process permits the immediate imposition of Court access restrictions upon apparently vexatious litigants but invited the parties to provide submissions respecting whether further Court access restrictions were appropriate. This Decision dealt with the imposition of Court access restrictions.

Rooke A.C.J. first reviewed Ubah’s “troubling record of abusive and unsuccessful litigation and his other interactions with Canadian [C]ourts”. In addition to Ubah’s interactions with the Court of Queen’s Bench, His Lordship noted that Ubah had initiated eight civil Actions in Provincial Court. One of those Actions was struck pursuant to Rule 3.68, and another was dismissed as unmeritorious pursuant to Rule 7.3. Ubah had also initiated eight Actions in Federal Court. Rooke. A.C.J. found that Ubah had a pattern of “knowingly ignoring and breaking [C]ourt rules and instructions”, and suggested that he believed he had an “absolute right” to do so.

His Lordship explained that Court access restrictions may be imposed where future litigation abuse is plausible and emphasized that only one abusive proceeding may be sufficient to trigger Court access restrictions. In this case, Ubah had “conducted dozens of abusive lawsuits, judicial reviews, applications, and appeals”. His Lordship found that gatekeeping was “obviously required”, and that only global Court access restrictions across all Alberta Courts could mitigate his conduct.

As such, pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction, Rooke A.C.J. declared Ubah a vexatious litigant and imposed Court access restrictions. In addition to other restrictions, Ubah was prohibited from commencing or continuing any Appeal, Action, Application, or proceeding in any level of Court in Alberta without leave from the Court; was required to be represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta to request leave; and was prohibited from acting as agent, next friend, or McKenzie Friend to any other person in Court proceedings pursuant to Rule 2.22 or 2.23. Further, Ubah was required to apply before a single Appeal Judge for leave to commence or continue a proceeding in Provincial Court, and noted that if the single Appeal Judge granted him leave to commence an Appeal, he may still be required to apply for permission to Appeal pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(j), and in doing so was required to append a copy of the Order declaring him a vexatious litigant to the Application and depose “fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding” the proposed proceeding to satisfy the Court that the Appeal is not abusive.

Pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c), Rooke A.C.J. dispensed with Ubah’s approval as to the form and content of the Order.