Salim Rana, et al. v. Zahir Rana, et al.

(Alberta) (Civil) (By Leave)


Canadian charter (Non-criminal) - Courts, Judges - Charter of Rights – Section 8 rights – Informational privacy rights – Rights of self-represented litigants – Visitation rights – Judgments and orders – Interlocutory judgments – Courts – Judges – Applicant declared a vexatious litigant and seeking to appeal numerous orders – Whether case management judge showed partiality and biasness toward self-represented applicant – Whether court may prohibit son from visiting his mother – Whether technicalities are more important than a person’s Charter rights – Whether courts allowed respondents to unlawfully invade and disclose applicant’s private information – Whether courts may prohibit a person declared as a vexatious litigant to appeal his or her case even though the filing and the decision of the lower court were done before the issuance of the vexatious litigant order - Whether personal directive of mother in favour of respondent should be nullified – Whether court may validate bill of costs submitted by solicitor who claims solicitor-client privilege – What is the nature of the Notice to Admit Facts? – Whether there were procedural errors in the lower courts



Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2013, the applicant’s mother signed a Personal Directive that appointed her son Mr. Zahir Rana, the respondent, as her substitute decision maker. The applicant sought to challenge this decision and also sought to have visitation rights with his mother, whom he had not seen in many years. The applicant was also engaged in a long-running lawsuit against his mother over a promissory note he maintains that she signed to him in 2014. The applicant filed numerous statements of claim against various individuals with many interlocutory applications and appeals. The applicant was also declared a vexatious litigant. His applications for permission to appeal several orders were also dismissed.