A Vancouver girl is asking for the courts to make an instance of her neighbour, a practising lawyer she alleges has filed a baseless pseudolegal lawsuit towards her in an try and “provoke a state of worry.”
Colleen McLelland stood earlier than a B.C. Supreme Court docket grasp on Wednesday, asking for a discover of declare filed by actual property lawyer Naomi Arbabi to be struck as “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious.” McLelland additionally known as on the court docket to refer a criticism towards Arbabi to the Legislation Society of B.C.
“I really feel that the court docket must make an instance of this case, the place a self-represented litigant made arguments in regulation and adopted the right court docket process, however a lawyer superior a pseudolegal declare and abused the court docket’s course of,” McLelland informed the grasp.
“I estimate that my authorized charges on this matter, based mostly on the billing of legal professionals I’ve retained up to now, can be roughly $15,000 up to now had I not self-represented. This pseudolegal declare has taken months of my time, leading to pointless prices, and extra importantly brought on excessive stress to me, my household and associates.”
Arbabi’s discover of declare, filed on Oct. 5, accuses McLelland of “trespass” for putting in a privateness divider on her rooftop deck of their Fairview apartment constructing. Arbabi identifies herself as “i, a lady” within the declare and says the case can be tried within the “naomi arbabi court docket.”
She writes that “this can be a declare based mostly on regulation of the land, and never a criticism based mostly on authorized codes acts or statutes” and asks for compensation equal to $1,000 a day for daily the glass divider has been in place — totalling near $70,000 by now.
McLelland argued the lawsuit is a transparent instance of what Canadian courts have termed an organized pseudolegal business argument (OPCA) — a completely debunked and wholly unsuccessful class of authorized idea favoured by fringe teams like Sovereign Residents and Freemen on the Land.
“In coping with Ms. Arbabi’s discover and declare, I actually really feel a sufferer of paper terrorism and imagine the general public must be protected against such litigation ways,” McLelland stated.
On Wednesday, Grasp Susanna Hughes reserved her choice on McLelland’s software to strike the discover of declare, saying she would launch written causes at a later date.
Lawyer says courts misunderstand ‘pure regulation’
In her submissions on Wednesday, Arbabi denied any affiliation with organized pseudolegal teams, however informed the court docket “I do suppose that our authorized system has a variety of flaws.” She argued that she was showing in court docket as “a dwelling, respiratory, alive girl,” not a lawyer, and stated she would confer with herself utilizing a lowercase “i”.
“That i possess a licence to apply regulation within the authorized jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia doesn’t make i right into a lawyer, the identical method that having a driver’s licence to drive a motorized vehicle doesn’t make i right into a driver,” Arbabi stated.
A spokesperson for the Legislation Society of B.C. stated in an electronic mail that she couldn’t touch upon this particular case, “however basically, pseudolaw arguments don’t encourage respect for the administration of justice and will develop into the premise for an investigation and self-discipline.”
The code of conduct for legal professionals in B.C. requires them to encourage respect for the justice system, and says they need to not weaken public confidence in authorized establishments although irresponsible claims.
In her submissions, McLelland referred to the 2012 Meads vs. Meads choice from Alberta, which has been known as a “area information” for figuring out OPCA litigation.
“Ms. Arbabi’s declare has all the weather of being OPCA together with, however not restricted to: it’s a declare of trespass based mostly on frequent regulation rights; Ms. Arbabi rejects her identify and makes use of the split-person motif; and she or he requests a vigilante court docket course of,” McLelland informed the court docket.
“I submit that Ms. Arbabi knew she doesn’t have standing for a declare towards me and used a pseudolegal discover … to intimidate me and provoke a state of worry.”
She additionally argued that her strata was liable for putting in the divider after the earlier one was eliminated with out permission by one other proprietor, and stated B.C. regulation solely permits lawsuits to be filed by or towards strata firms, not between particular person house owners.
For her half, Arbabi claimed that Canadian judges who’ve dominated on OPCA litigants, as in Meads vs. Meads, don’t actually grasp the ideas of “pure regulation” and “trespass” that she bases her lawsuit on.
“Many courts, together with the claimant, have hassle understanding what’s also known as pure regulation. … Pure regulation — or as I name it, simply regulation — is that which is so apparent that it’s not required to be written down into an act or statute,” Arbabi stated.
She went on to say that “a trespass happens when a person or a lady knowingly does the fallacious deed … not accidentally, not by ignorance, however with intention and with out authority and doesn’t present treatment or lawful excuse.”
Arbabi alleged that trespass “bestows one a dishonourable standing which I don’t want upon anybody,” and stated she filed the lawsuit to provide McLelland an opportunity to clear her identify.
“I didn’t need to stroll away indignantly and go away the mark of a trespass on her,” Arbabi stated.
She additionally denied that her declare has something to do with the constructing’s strata company, saying that it has “no standing, legally or lawfully.”
Arbabi stated her case is predicated quite on an argument of proprietary estoppel, a authorized idea based mostly in English frequent regulation that protects individuals who have been negatively affected after counting on assurances associated to land. She informed the court docket there was no deck divider when she bought her apartment, and its set up has ruined her house’s “crown jewel” — its view of the North Shore mountains.
‘I, a lady, am not Naomi Arbabi’
Earlier than Wednesday’s listening to, McLelland informed CBC that coping with this declare has felt like “a comedy of errors.”
An affidavit of service filed by McLelland says that when a course of server knocked on Arbabi’s door to serve her with McLelland’s response to the declare, the lady who answered stated she was not Naomi Arbabi.
The method server writes within the affidavit that she discovered Arbabi’s photograph on-line, and confirmed it was the individual she’d simply met, so she emailed Arbabi to ask for a proof.
Arbabi responded: “if you ask i if i’m Naomi Arbabi the reply is at all times no as Naomi Arbabi is an included identify and doesn’t confer with a dwelling respiratory girl.”
In accordance with the affidavit, Arbabi expanded on her idea in one other electronic mail later the identical day, explaining that Naomi Arbabi was a “useless entity company” created by her beginning certificates.
“I, a lady, am not Naomi Arbabi, however Naomi Arbabi is the identify I’m known as. There’s a delicate however essential distinction between the 2. Sadly, this isn’t frequent data but,” she wrote.
Final month, Arbabi agreed to fulfill with a CBC reporter to debate her lawsuit, however upon arrival, declined to reply any questions. As a substitute, she learn out a discover warning of penalties if a narrative is revealed with out her consent.
“as such hurt is a really grievous trespass, i, shall declare treatment within the quantity of $500,000 for such trespass plus $5,000 a day for so long as the trespass continues,” it reads.