Case information

Administrative law — Boards and tribunals — Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta — Disciplinary Committee — Appeal Board — Courts — Jurisdiction — Evidence — Meaning of “proceeding” — Abuse of power — Access to courts, justice and rule of law — Improper delegation — Bias — Self-represented litigants — Vexatious litigant orders — Accountability under the law — Legislative intent — Procedural fairness and transparency — Whether application for leave raises issues of public or national importance.

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.

The Disciplinary Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta found that Mr. Ubah’s attempts or threats to commence proceedings with various bodies amounted to abuse of process or an improper purpose, and that he was ungovernable. His registration as a professional engineer was cancelled and sanctions were imposed against him. The Association’s Appeal Board upheld that decision. Mr. Ubah seeks to appeal both decisions.

In 2019, in unrelated proceedings, Mr. Ubah was declared a vexatious litigant by the Court of King’s Bench; that order was updated in November 2022: Ubah v. Ubah, 2022 ABCA 15. The order provided, in part, that Mr. Ubah was prohibited from commencing or continuing any appeal, action, application or proceeding in the Alberta courts without an order for leave of the court in which the proceeding was conducted.

Mr. Ubah filed a Notice of Appeal from the decisions of the Committee and the Board with the Court of Appeal. The Case Management Officer directed Mr. Ubah that he needed to seek leave to commence the appeal. Mr. Ubah did not believe that he needed to seek permission, so he sought to have the Case Management Officer’s decision rescinded, and, if that application was unsuccessful, he sought leave to commence an appeal. He also sought disclosure of certain records from the Association.

Mr. Ubah’s application for the disclosure of certain records was dismissed, as was his request for permission to appeal the decision of the Appeal Board. His applications for a further and better appeal record before a single judge and for permission to appeal from the dismissal of his application for a further and better appeal record were denied. His request to rescind the Case Management Officer’s direction that he was required to obtain leave to appeal was also denied, as was his alternative request for leave to appeal