naomi arbabi, a Canadian lentzian Lawyer

[Burnaby49]

The CBC report is very thorough, essentially preempts what I can report. Serves me right for being so lackadaisical. They obviously checked out all the filed documents. There were a bunch of affidavits noted in the Court Service Online that I didn't bother to check out. I have the defendant's submissions that I'll include in my posting.

[Irving T. Rosenbaum]

If she is still actively practicing law--and it appears she still is--is she providing OPCA as legal advice or in legal documents to her clients?

Somebody who's been billed a few thousand dollars for a pile of useless gibberish instead of an enforceable contract would be quick to complain. And it's unlikely to be just one complainant.

On the other hand, if she is providing genuine legal advice and documents at the same time she is spewing OPCA nonsense in court, it makes you wonder how sincere her commitment to OPCA principles are when they get in the way of making money.

[Burnaby49]

I'm assuming an entirely normal law practice. However, as she explained in court, when she's spewing out OPCA gibberish she isn't practicing law. She said when she practices law she follows the rules but she wasn't practicing law at the hearing, she was acting as a woman. Apparently she can turn being a lawyer on and off as the situation fits, just like turning a tap off when you've had your shower. I doubt the law Society will appreciate the dixstinction.

I'll be posting my court review equivalent to War and Peace in a few hours. It's very long with a lot of my almost illegible notes I still have to figure out. Right now I have to take a break to pick up my grandson from school. Far more important than writing up Naomi.

[JamesVincent]

dixstinction.

I didn't know you went to Fort Dix.

[Burnaby49]

I’m writing this up under a severe handicap. Veteran Burnaby49 court report readers know I prefer to compose the long, complex ones starting about 10 or so at night, popping open a bottle of red wine, Put Thelonious Monk on the headphones (generally Monk's Dream, my favorite album) and staying at it until two or three in the morning. Next day I review, revise, edit, check facts, whatever. But, because of the release of the CBC article and the discussion's rapidly growing viewer count I’ve decided, like any hack reporter on a deadline, to just sit down and get it done. So I’ve just banged it out without much proofreading or editing. The result is this bloated pig rather than a well-crafted eloquent masterpiece. Enjoy!


Time to write up my day in court, actually my very tedious day in court. But I should confess before I even start to my complete inability to understand why Arbabi pursued such a doomed, crazed course over a minor legal issue;

I wrote on November 12th;

I can't find any indication of any prior similar activities by Arbabi. I find it astonishing that, right out of the gate, she went on this self-destructive Lentzian warpath. As a relatively experienced lawyer she must realize, on some level, that her case is doomed and if she continues it's going to cost her big-time, professionally and financially. She has so much to lose and absolutely nothing to gain but she still continues. Totally beyond my understanding.

I’m no more enlightened after listening to her at Wednesday’s hearing. I did a number of Google checks between my first posting on this thread and the hearing. All that I found was what I’ve already posted here. A small law practice in Vancouver doing basic everyday legal work, a few news articles about her lawsuit, a totally innocuous Instagram account. Google actually had very little about her and nothing even hinting at her sudden precipitous descent into sovereign madness. All I have is unanswered questions. She claims to know real estate law, so why didn’t she follow her own strata’s rules and complain to the strata counsel about the divider? Did she realize that suing them was hopeless? If so, why did she sue Colleen McLelland when, as McLelland correctly argued at the hearing, she has no standing in this? Above all, as a qualified practicing lawyer, why wasn’t it instantly obvious to her that Lentz’s pseudolaw was totally worthless gibberish? Didn’t she do any research to see if something so radical and so disconnected from any law she knew and practiced was valid law? I watched her testify in court and she seemed to me to sincerely believe in Lentz’s rubbish. Why?

I have no more insight into the above questions now than I did when I initially started this thread. As far as I can determine she transitioned almost instantly from an everyday, normal, middle-class life to an aggressive Carl Lentz acolyte. That makes no sense to me but I’ve found nothing even hinting at an alternate backstory.

Anyhow, on to my day. The hearing was scheduled for 9:45 but I couldn’t head downtown until after 9:00, grandfather duties. However I managed to get to the courtroom right at 9:45. I could have stopped for a coffee, the hearing didn’t really start until 10:30. The forty-five minute delay was due to procedural paperwork.

It was a small courtroom with five rows of ten seats each and a center aisle. When I entered the courtroom the aisle was packed with lawyers in a scrum extending from the hall outside right to the bench. I worked past them to the front row, settled in on the right side of the aisle, and looked around for Arbabi. She was sitting by herself on the left side of the aisle one row behind me. She looked angry. Maybe she was ticked off that the court hadn’t changed its name to the naomi arbabi court contrary to her clear specific orders to do so. I checked again a few minutes later and she seemed to be glaring right at me. If she’d read my Quatloos postings and was looking for me I wasn’t hard to pick out in that sea of black suit. So I kept eyes front from that point on and started working on my backlog of New Yorkers.

Although the mob of litigators cramming the aisle had been assigned to today’s session they were lining up to complete one more necessary procedural step. They had to individually register with the court clerk, today’s master of ceremonies, giving their names, their file number, who they represented, whether the matter was opposed or unopposed, and the estimated amount of time they needed from the judge. If they didn’t register they wouldn’t be heard. One hapless lawyer didn’t have his number and was told to go away and get it. The clerk was the only court official present and was responsible for running the entire show. The session seemed to have been overbooked and it was a very hectic day for her. Amongst other things she determined the sequence in which the cases were to be heard. They were generally heard chronologically, from the shortest anticipated time to longest. However the day was confusing, some late entries were allowed in and a few hearing were handed over to other judges.

The registration was almost like a social event for the waiting lawyers. They caught up on promotions, departures, changes in firms, vacations, marriages and kids, very collegiate. There were a lot of young articling students. Some lawyers were cutting deals right in the lineup. When registration was finally done the clerk called order in court, and the Master entered. A Master? This had me confused. As Donald Netolitzky had written in an earlier posting;

A "regular" chambers appearance is one of fixed and short duration, typically where each party had 5-15 minutes to advance their argument before either a regular court judge, or a procedure-only decision maker with titles like a Master, Prothonotary, or in my jurisdiction, "Applications Judges". Commonplace chambers applications are for orders such as substitutional service, decisions relating to civil procedure, interim family dispute orders, and so on.

As Donald noted a Master is a “procedures only” decision maker and didn’t hear contested lawsuits. So why were Arbabi and McLelland battling through a lawsuit front of a Master? I think I got an explanation later when I was corrected on a screw-up I’d made in my November 29th posting. I’ll get to my mea culpa in a bit.

The Master was a woman in her early fifties (but allow a wide range, I’m terrible at guessing ages), brisk, businesslike, and familiar with submitted documentation. She did a great job in handling the mob scene she was facing. She sat down and got right to work clearing out the five minute applications. As I’ve noted in the past with prior Chambers Hearings I've attended the presiding officials are impressive. Our Master seemed very focused. She reviewed and assessed a lot of information quickly and (apart from our case), decided immediately. She didn’t seem the kind of person who’d cut Arbabi any slack on pseudolaw gibberish.

We started on the five minute hearings, most just court orders that lawyers wanted signed. As Donald noted largely substitution services (called alternate service here) to relieve plaintiffs from having to personally serve documents on MIA defendants. Only one was rejected by the Master. She said the submitted documentation on the defendant, a fairly common name, didn’t provide adequate proof that the individual who owed the bank money was the same person residing at the claimed address, so she told the lawyer to try again. One plaintiff had sent the process server to the defendant’s place of residence 11 times. The process server said that it appeared that someone was inside but nobody would answer the door. Order signed. Another involved an unfortunate bank screw-up. In 2018 the bank had inadvertently discharged the defendant’s unpaid debt on a large mortgage and the defendant was now refusing to pay. I missed what the court order was about but it was approved. All but one of the five minute hearings were unopposed and the parties in the opposed case had already come to an agreement and just wanted court approval.

At 11:20 the Master completed the five minute applications and it was on to the ten minutes but first the morning break and back at 11:40. These covered more serious issues, a party wanted mother declared mentally incompetent at only 65. Apparently there were arguments between the kids. Somebody else drove into a tree. These were over at 12:15 then the clerk called for the one hour matters. One hour? What happened to our 20 minutes?

The Master said she’d hear the first fifteen minutes of a one hour session then we’d break for lunch and back at 2:00. So I left and went to the Templeton, an authentic old-school diner right downtown.

http://thetempleton.ca/



I always go to the Templeton when I’m at court for the day, it’s just a few blocks away. The Templeton is one of the very few Vancouver restaurants that’s older than I am. It’s been in business, in the same premises, for 89 years and looks it. It opened in 1934 as Adele’s Café. The name was changed to the Tip Top in 1957 and renamed the Templeton in 1996. They claim that the last substantial renovation was in the 1950’s. It’s set up in classic diner style with just booths and a counter, I sat at the counter.

I was back at 1:30. Naomi was sitting by herself in the lobby so I went to the other lobby and sat near a group of four people. It turned out to be our defendant Colleen McLelland and some friends although I didn't realize it at the time. I chatted with her after the hearing so I’ll call her Colleen from now on.

We were let in a bit before 2:00 and the hour hearing recommenced. I sat in the front again and the court clerk came over to talk to me! Are you here on a matter? I told her no, I was just reporting on Arbabi for a blog. Arbabi? I said it was scheduled for a 20 minute hearing. There’s a 20 minute matter left? We’ll try and get you on. I told her I wasn’t a party, just reporting on the matter for a blog. I pointed Naomi out and said that she was the plaintiff. She went over to Naomi and told her they’d try to fit her in.

Recall that screw-up I mentioned earlier? I'd assumed from this conversation that Naomi had simply been lost in the shuffle and my talk with the clerk got her back on track. That’s why I’d written in a November 29th posting;

Naomi got her hearing (probably thanks to me, I'll explain why in the write-up but, given her performance, she has nothing to thank me for)

And I was entirely wrong, I had absolutely nothing to do with Arbabi being reinstated after being skipped in the chronological sequence. To jump ahead somewhat, after I made that posting I contacted Colleen to see if she could clear some of my confusion about the day's proceedings and she gave me information I didn’t have during the hearing. Both she and Naomi had registered. I missed it because of my late arrival. Naomi told the clerk she needed 30 minutes for her arguments. Since Colleen needed 20 minutes this turned it into a request for a 50 minute session which was why the clerk was puzzled when I said I was here for a 20 minute matter. More importantly this was apparently when the clerk realized that Naomi had filed her lawsuit in the wrong court. This was a contested lawsuit requiring a judge rather than a Master, who was, as Donald noted, “a procedure-only decision maker”.

So the clerk spent the morning trying, and failing, to re-schedule them in front of a Supreme Court Justice. After lunch the clerk advised the parties that the Master would hear their case after all. My guess is that one quick read-through the filed documents at lunch showed the Master that Naomi’s lawsuit was such dead on arrival garbage that the decision was a no-brainer. However getting heard was a close call because the immediately prior hearing, scheduled for only an hour, dragged on inordinately, leaving only a few minutes to cram our case in. When they were finally done at 3:10 we had the afternoon break until 3:30. At the break the clerk again came over, this time just curious. She asked me why I’d sat through the entire day if I wasn’t a party. I told her my hobby was writing up on sovereign citizens and Naomi had gone full-frontal sovereign by rebranding the Supreme Court of British Columbia as the naomi arbabi court and had made up her own set of alternative laws for the court to hear. So you’re not with the strata? Nope, here on my own dime. She told me they’d scheduled thirty matters in four hours of court time, an exhausting day and there was still one quick matter left before Naomi was heard so the Master might not be able to fit her in before the 4:00 closing. We’d have to wait and see.

Court formality went out the window when we reconvened. The Master just walked in without any notice and the clerk, checking some papers, gave a belated “Order in Court” as the Master sat down. Everybody was tired. There were actually two matters still ahead of us but both were very quick. The first was a lawyer who’d been granted a court order earlier in this session. She was back to ask that it be vacated because she’d inadvertently given the court incorrect information. She’d said that the defendant had been served notice of the hearing but, checking her records later, it turned out that he hadn’t been served. Order vacated. Second was some young guy who wanted a filing fee waived. Master said she’d read his application and waiver granted.

Arbaby v McLelland was finally up at 3:37. Unfortunately it was right at the end of the court day and the courtroom was almost empty. Those dozens of lawyers had sat through mind-numbing legal tedium and missed the only entertaining part of the day. Well I found it entertaining. In all my years of sovereign court reporting I’ve not seen anything quite like the self-destructive show Naomi put on.

Both parties self-represented. Arbabi said she needed 20 minutes, McLelland requested 15 minutes. The Master suggested deferring until Thursday or Friday. Colleen was fine with that but Naomi wasn’t, said she had to get back to her work. The Master finally decided to hear it now and get it over with but she first asked Naomi if she really needed just 20 minutes. I’ll try your honour. Colleen stayed within her time limit, Naomi did not.

Colleen was up first and I’ve got over a page of almost illegible scribbling I’m not going to type out because she read her application to the Master and I have a copy. So you don’t need my disjointed scrawling, you can read the defense’s arguments yourselves;

I am McLelland first initial C.

This application is brough pursuant to Rule 9-5, Tab 1, that at any time in the proceedings the court may strike a claim on the grounds that: it discloses no reasonable claim, it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious it is otherwise an abuse of the court’s process.

By way of background, I’ll refer to my first affidavit, Tab 3.The matter arises from a privacy divider that was re-installed on my limited common property by Strata Corporation plan VR 1542 as represented by strata council on Sept. 5, 2023. The original divider was removed and disposed of without strata authorization by a neighbour who borders my LCP, while I was out of town for an extended period of time.

Prior to the re-installation, Ms. Arbabi expressed concerns to strata that re-installing the divider could block some of her view. Strata replied to Ms. Arbabi in a letter on Sept. 5, 2023, Exhibit B,stating that it was abiding by the letter of the Strata Act as advised by counsel in first replacing the divider and then ensuring that the owners of 03/304/305 understood there was a Strata Act procedure to replace the original with an alternative.,"

Ms. Arbabi also attempted to communicate with me multiple times regarding thisStrata matter. For the record, I am not a strata council member.

On September 7, 2023, Ms. Arbabi dropped some documents through my mail slot, regarding the divider. Exhibit C.They included a Notice using alternative nomenclature referring to herself as i: woman, in lowercase, and included a fee schedule demanding $1,000 a day for every day the divider was up. According to the notice I had21 days to remove the divider.

I promptly sent Ms. Arbabi a cease-and-desist letter dated Sept. 11, 2023, by registered mail, Exhibit D, stating that her communications were unwanted and that she knows or ought to know that she has no standing to take legal action against me, as strata was abiding by the letters of the strata act when it re-installed the privacy divider.

I also included in my affidavit,Exhibit A, the Land Titles document for the purchase of Ms. Arbabi’s property that states the title was issued under the Strata Property Act and lists the purchaser as Naomi Arbabi, lawyer. Ms. Arbabi practises law in Vancouver at Envision Law corporation. One of the services listed on her firm’s website is Real Estate law.

Following the 21-day deadline imposed by Ms. Arbabi’s Notice, on Oct. 5, 2023, Ms. Arbabi filed a Notice of Civil Claim in the BC Supreme court naming me as the defendant. In the claim, Ms. Arbabi continues to self-identify as “i” and states her claim is for trespass on ia Woman and is based on the law of the land. She further states that the matter will be heard in the Naomi Arbabi court that will not accept any legal arguments, codes, acts or statutes, and has its own set of rules which she includes in her claim.

I filed a motion to strike and Response to Civil Claim on Oct. 24, 2023.

During attempted service of the documentsMs. Arbabi, denied she was Naomi Arbabi in person, even though the process server positively identified herfrom her firm’s website photo. On October 30, 2023, Ms. Arbabi sent the process server an email titled “Notice” and threatened fines of $1,000 payable and stated “if you wish to bring i any documents you may do so with honour and refer to “i” as a living breathing woman.”

Later that same day, Ms. Arbabi stated in another email to the process server: I, a woman, am not Naomi Arbabi, but Naomi Arbabi is the name that I’m called. There is a subtle but crucial difference between the two. This is not common knowledge, yet.

I have the service affidavit here filed November 6, 2023, Justice if you would like to see it.

Those are the facts in this case.

I will now refer to my book of Authorities.

The authorities are clear on this matter, that Strata has jurisdiction over Strata property.Underlegislation, Tab 8:

The Strata Property Act states:

s. 163 (1)The strata corporation may be sued as representative of the owners
s 171& 172Strata Corporation may sue as representative of all owners or of some of the owners
Also, the law is settled on this, May I refer you to Tab 6…Justice Huddart summarizes it well in Extra Gift Exchange Inc. v. Collins., 2004 BCCA 588 at par 4:"To the extent that ground for relief may be arguable, it must be put forward by the Strata Corporation, who is authorized by s. 171 of the Strata Property Act to sue as representative of “all owners, except any who are being sued,” if authorized by a resolution “passed by a ¾ vote” of those owners who are not being sued. The wrong alleged is to the Strata Corporation. Thus, only that corporation may seek relief.”
ibid at para 5.
"In this regard I agree with the reasons expressed by Lowry J. in Ang v. Spectra Management Serivices Ltd., [2002] B.C.J. No. 2506, 2002 BCSC 1544, particularly in para. 17 where he wrote that an owner should not be permitted to “circumvent the governance provisions of the Act and achieve what it cannot achieve through a special meeting of the owners.”
This ruling was recently upheld in Cheikes v BM Clubhouse 40 Ltd, 2023 BCSC 14. Tab 7 at para 23, Justice A Saunders states: “To the extent the dispute involves the use of common property, including limited common property, the proper party to enforce the interests of the individual owners must be the Strata.

I submit that Ms. Arbabi knewshe doesn’t have standing for a claim against me and used a pseudolegal Notice with fee schedule, and a pseudolegal claim, or Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument (OPCA), as Justice Rooke named such litigation in Meads v Meads 2012 ABQB 571, to try to intimidate me and provoke a state of fear. Justice Rooke’s
landmark decision is in my BOA as Tab 1.

Ms. Arbabi’s claim has all the elements of being OPCA including but not limited tothat: it’s a claim of trespass on common law rights, Ms. Arbabi rejects her name, uses the split person motif, and requests a vigilante court process.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal in Fiander v MillsTab 5, instructs that a lawsuit that exhibits the double/split person motif should be presumed to be frivolous and vexatious because the “Strawman” is totally invalid:

In Meads, again at Tab 1, at para 570 Justice Rooke states “… an OPCA concept that denies jurisdiction of the court is vexatious in character and a basis to immediately strike out arguments, applications and litigation.”

I submit to the court, that I am a private citizen and not the government or an institutional actor with public resources to defend this pseudolegal claim. I estimate that my legal fees in this matter based on the billing of lawyers I’ve retained in the past, would be approximately $15,000 to date had I not self-represented. This pseudolegal claim has taken months of my time, resulted in unnecessary costs and more importantly, caused extreme stress to me, my family, and friends.

In dealing with Ms. Arbabi’s notices and claim I truly feel a victim of paper terrorism and believe the public needs to be protected from such litigation tactics.

My final case law reference:

In Anderson v Ossowski 2021 ABQB 428,Tab 3, Justice Rooke states at para 25:
Ms. Anderson is a litigation terrorist, a person who uses “… court process to inflict harm on targets, intimidate, and empower themselves to dominate others.” Unrau #2 para 230. Persons like Ms. Anderson, who use courts as a weapon to harm others ... should not be tolerated. When one of these malignant personalities is identified, public confidence in the judicial system will be severely taxed unless their “weaponized litigation” is brought under immediate and effective control. [Unrau #2 at para 238, emphasis in original.]

I respectfully ask the court to strike Ms. Arbabi’s claim in its entirety pursuant to Rule 9-5, and award elevated costs. I would also like the court to make a referral to the Law Society of BC.
I feel that the court needs to make an example of this case, where a self-representing litigant made arguments in law and followed proper court procedure, but a lawyer advanced a pseudolegal claim, and abused the court’s process.

Then Naomi was up to bat. She immediately blasted away with Lentzian gibberish and kept at it relentlessly, speaking quickly and without pause so I doubt I got half of it. There was no actual real law in any of it. Instead of trying to translate it all I’ll just transcribe my notes exactly as I wrote them. Only the punctuation is mine, she didn’t slow down enough to indicate individual sentences. Keep in mind these are the fragments I managed to get on paper but if I’d written down the whole thing it would have made no more sense;

Naomi starts with i, a woman bullshit. i don’t belong to a church, not a moor, not a sovereign, the legal system has flaws. This is a claim causing i loss of enjoyment, for this she has no rights. She wants law (heard?) for her issue. Making wall done entirely by defendant, strata counsel only allowed it. Strata counsel did an illegal act, they acted negligently. More man and woman bullshit. i have rights. We should have negotiated in good faith but strata counsel and this woman blame i. i am met with threats to property and livelihood of i. I lost track of the craziness (Burnaby49 note - that comment was mine, not Naomi. I wrote it to myself to point out that I was getting lost fast. Back to the madness).

Defense at fault for not coming to discussion in good faith. All i i i i’s (Burnaby49 note again – she stuffed her entire presentation full of i’s and "i, a woman". I’ve left most of them out). This matter does not involve strata even on a legal basis. Something about strata breaking the bylaws by not allowing i enjoyment of i’s property. Strata has no standing either legally or lawfully. They accuse i of (being?) party to pseudolaw OPCA group. Judge calm all way through.

Defense claims i is vexatious and scandalous. Something about CBC reporter. i make it clear to this defendant and court i do claim monetary compensation for loss of enjoyment. Defendant not acting in good faith. i only want to enjoy property of i.

It was like a firehose.

Make a substantial distinction to citations. News articles about claim. i make claim in court about woman. Province does not make i a lawyer. Driving license example. Similarly when practicing law i follow rules but i am not practicing law here today i am here as a woman. First time in my forty years I’ve been in court, I’m a living, breathing, alive woman.

I think we’re straying a little bit from issue at court today. (Burnaby49 – That’s a comment by the Master)

I don’t identify as a woman, I am woman.

How much longer? (Again, Master)

Distinction between i as owner or i as woman. i as woman have no definition, there is no definition of woman.

Judge just sat and listened.

Natural law is that which is so obvious it need not be written down.

Burnaby49 cutting into the stream of consciousness. At this point I threw in the towel. I have a comment saying;

I gave up. Natural law, i woman, not trespassing on i. Back to Naomi;

i invited her to this court to show that i can forgive her as trespass. What part of the claim of ii is vexatious or scandalous?

Now back to Burnaby49. At this point there’s an entire paragraph of my notes I can’t make out, not that it matters. What little I can make out is the same gibberish. The Driving license example I referred to was a comparison Naomi made. She said that she had a driver's license but she wasn't a driver unless she was actually driving her car so it was up to her whether she was a driver or not. Her license to practice law was exactly the same. She could pick and chose when she was practicing law and therefore acting as a lawyer. When she dealt with client matters she was a lawyer. But today she wasn't a lawyer, she was a woman so whatever she did today couldn't be considered to affect her standing as a lawyer. I doubt that the British Columbia law Society will make the same distinction.

Naomi was almost done anyhow although she didn’t know it. She seemed settled in for the next hour or two but the Master had been firm about 4:00. She’d let Naomi ramble on until 4:11 but she’d had enough. Master said “you said you could do this in fifteen minutes” Naomi’s response was “i said i’d try”. That was it for her.

Colleen had a very brief reply. “She has shown nothing that shows she has standing to sue me (or?) strata. She’s asked for a vigilante court process. The strata organization paid to construct it, I didn’t install it. She has no standing to sue me”

The Master said she couldn’t give a judgment today and she’d provide a written judgment later. And, at 4:15, we were finally done.

A written judgment is bad news for Naomi. She’s going to lose, that’s a certainty, and the judge could have just given an oral decision at the end of the hearing. So going to the trouble of putting it in writing means she’s going to elaborate on her reasons and it’s not going to be about the intricacies of strata laws. I’m guessing that she’s none too happy about having to sit in the naomi arbabi court all day and being ordered to render a decision base on Lentzian law. I await it with interest.

[The Observer]

Interesting writeup, Burnaby, even if it cost you a whole day to get it.

Will a master in this situation (witnessing OPCA in open court) take some sort of action to have arbabi's license put under consideration for revocation? Or does that require a regular judge?

[Burnaby49]

I have no idea, I really have no idea of the actual powers a Master holds but my experience with Masters is very limited. This is the first time I've seen an actual lawsuit heard by a Master. I was under the impression they didn't have the authority to hear a case like this and give a decision. Perhaps Donald Knows.

[DNetolitzky]

In Canada courts no longer have any authority (at least that I'm aware of) to affect the licensing of a lawyer. That's entirely been transferred to the various provincial law societies.

Now, courts certainly can offer opinions, but that's as far as it goes. So in relation to Arbabi, a BCSC Master or Justice could refer an individual to the Law Society of British Columbia for their review - be it unauthorized practice of law, or "bad lawyer" stuff - and editorialize, but there's nothing binding from that.

Of course, if a judge was to write a decision that details what the court thinks is bad conduct, that would hopefully have some impact. But really, the "court" and "lawyer certification/regulation" silos are separate. If the LSBC doesn't choose to do anything? That's the end of it.

Canadian courts do, however, have the inherent jurisdiction authority to say who appears before the court or not. A British Columbia Court of Appeal decision (R v Dick, 2002 BCCA 27) says that function is not just an authority, but an obligation to remove inappropriate counsel. (R v Dick was our old friend David Kevin Lindsay getting removed as a litigation representative/agent.)

So, just as a hypothetical, if the LSBC decided not to do anything about Arbabi, the BCSC could say "Fine, the LSBC says you're a lawyer, but we're banning you from appearing in our court." I can't think of an instance where I've seen that occur, but the authority to do so does exist.

Hope that helps!

Donald Netolitzky

[JamesVincent]

Question, O esteemed court reporter of the pantless pants, what, pray tell, is this Strata that is referred to?

[technos]

Question, O esteemed court reporter of the pantless pants, what, pray tell, is this Strata that is referred to?

Canada's version of a condo board. Kind of like a home owner's association, but just for the one building.

[JamesVincent]

Canada's version of a condo board. Kind of like a home owner's association, but just for the one building.

That's kinda what I was thinking but it sounded a little different. Thanks.

[Burnaby49]

This is the basic description from Stratas for Dummies.

A strata is a group of individual owners that are part of a whole. The whole they create is a separate legal entity and should be looked at as an “individual”. Under this strata arrangement, owners own their individual strata lots while together owning the common property and common assets as a strata corporation.

What this means is properties which are held in common ownership but with each owner entitled to one specific part of the property. Also often called condominiums. I'll use my family as an example. I have two sons, both live in strata properties. One lives in a one bedroom apartment unit in a high rise building. He has legal title to that specific unit and everyone else in the building has title to their units. Everybody also has a right to one parking spot in the underground lot. But everything else, the land under the building and the rest of the building itself (halls, lobby, elevators, gym, pool and other amenities) belongs to the strata corporation which is owned jointly by the unit owners. Every owner pays a monthly maintenance fee for services like garbage, the gym or pool if they have them, and general repairs and maintenance.

My other son has a townhouse but the same rules apply. He has a front yard, back yard, and the land under his unit but he owns nothing but the unit itself. all the land in his strata is owned jointly by the corporation. The strata council, the organization which stands foursquare blocking Naomi's dream of suing McLelland, is the group, elected by the individual strata owners, that has the responsibility of running everything and ensure that the stringent strata rules are followed. They are responsible for small stuff like McLelland's divider but major issues, like replacing the roofs or elevators are determined by a vote of the owners. When I owned a strata apartment if I'd wanted to do any major work on my unit, like electrical or plumbing, I'd have needed council permission. This is why McLelland is the wrong party to sue. The council was legally responsible for putting up the divider.

Given that nobody but millionaires can afford to buy an actual stand-alone house in Vancouver anymore stratas/condos (and co-ops which I'm not discussing) are the only viable paths to home ownership here. So Arbabi and McLelland own condo units but, as this thread shows, there is always friction when so may people live so close together.

[Burnaby49]

Question, O esteemed court reporter of the pantless pants, what, pray tell, is this Strata that is referred to?

Canada's version of a condo board. Kind of like a home owner's association, but just for the one building.

Not quite, they are not restricted to a single building. The townhouse my son lives in is part of a four unit building which, in turn is part of a larger strata corporation of at least eight separate buildings. Some are townhouses like his but two are three floor apartment-style buildings. He and his wife lived in one of the apartment buildings in a two bedroom unit until our grandson showed up and they moved about three hundred feet to a townhouse in the same strata to get more space.

[Burnaby49]

This is how the Government of the Province of British Columbia explains strata's on the provincial website;

Overview

A strata corporation is a legal entity with all of the powers of a natural person who has full capacity. This means that it can sue or be sued, enter into contracts and hire employees.

The owners of the strata lots are the members of the strata corporation.

Therefore when a strata corporation is responsible for paying a judgment, the owners are personally liable to pay a portion of the judgment in proportion to their unit entitlement. A strata corporation does not have limited liability like a company.

A strata corporation is created to divide a building(s) and/or a parcel of land into separate components that are individually owned and common components owned by all of the owners.

The strata plan will show the separately and commonly owned components of the building(s) and/or land:

separately owned components are referred to as strata lots and
commonly owned components are referred to as common property

A strata corporation is a legal entity created by the deposit of a strata plan in the Land Title Office.

The Land Title Office will assign a number to the strata corporation. This will become the legal identity of the strata corporation. Examples of strata corporation numbers are LMS 1234 or KAS 9876.

The name of the strata corporation is: The Owners, Strata Plan, (the registration number of the strata plan).

Strata corporations are created under the Strata Property Act and not the Business Corporations Act. This means that there is no incorporation certificate for a strata corporation, and the Registrar of Companies does not regulate strata corporations.
Roles and responsibilities

The strata corporation is responsible for managing and maintaining the common property and assets of the strata development for the benefit of all of its owners.

The specific obligations of the strata corporation are usually performed by the strata council, or by agents or employees which that it hires such as a strata property manager.

The specific obligations of the strata corporation which that are set out in the Strata Property Act and regulations are:

preparing, retaining and making accessible various records including depreciation reports
holding general meetings, or obtaining the appropriate waiver of general meetings
giving notices of general meetings
preparing "Form B: Information Certificates" and "Form F: Certificates of Payment"
ensuring that the strata corporation address is correct at the Land Title Office
maintaining and repairing common property, except any limited common property that the owners may have to maintain under the bylaws complying with work orders which that deal with common property
maintaining a contingency reserve fund, which is accounted for separately from the operating fund
paying common expenses
for strata corporations with more than 4 units, obtaining a current depreciation report or holding an annual 3/4 vote to waive this requirement
determining the amount of contributions owners must make to the operating fund and the contingency reserve fund (strata fees)
preparing annual budgets
informing owners of any changes to strata fees
obtaining adequate insurance coverage and
informing owners if the strata corporation is sued

Decision Making

Decisions of the strata corporation are made by either the eligible voters in the strata corporation or the strata council in the following manner:

Unanimous Vote: the Strata Property Act or regulations may require that a matter be resolved by a unanimous vote. These decisions must be made by all the voters in the strata corporation. For example, changing unit entitlement requires an unanimous vote.
80% Vote: the Strata Property Act requires that a resolution to terminate a strata corporation pass by an 80% vote of all eligible voters in the strata corporation.
3/4 Vote: the Strata Property Act or regulations may require that a matter be resolved by a 3/4 vote. These decisions must be made by 3/4 of all the eligible voters who are present in person or by proxy at a general meeting, and who have not abstained from voting. For example, changing or creating a new bylaw requires a 3/4 vote.
Majority Vote: the Strata Property Act or regulations may require that a matter be resolved by a majority vote of the strata corporation. A majority vote is required to approve the budget, direct or restrict council, ratify rules, or continue the first strata management contract. These decisions must be made by more than half of all the eligible voters who are present in person or by proxy at a general meeting, and who have not abstained from voting. For example approving the annual budget.
Majority Vote Override: if a matter is not required by the Strata Property Act or regulations to be decided by a specific vote of the strata corporation, it can be resolved by a majority vote of the strata corporation even if the matter is usually decided by the strata council. These decisions must be made by more than half of all the eligible voters who are present in person or by proxy at a general meeting, and who have not abstained from voting. An example of a majority vote override is directing a strata council.
Strata Council: any matter that is not required by the Strata Property Act or regulations to be resolved by a specific vote of the strata corporation, or has not already been resolved by the strata corporation, can be made by the strata council. These decisions usually relate to the daily management of the strata corporation. For example, considering bids and awarding a contracted service.

That didn't cut and paste well but you can read it here;

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/hous ... rporations

[Burnaby49]

Naomi's finally really getting attention, none of it positive. I'd noted in an earlier post how a Google search found little of significance. Not anymore! It's swamped with links to articles about her court case. This Quatloos thread had, I think, about 500 viewings on Friday morning. It's 2:AM Saturday and that total is now 945 viewings. A Canadian lawyer has even put up an almost hour long You Tube video about Naomi's saga;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUoAUo941V0

I just found it so I've only watched a few minutes but I'm not impressed. Ian Runkle, the presenter, apparently knows nothing about Karl Lentz and how Naomi is devotedly following his crazed legal beliefs. Runkle seems to think that Naomi's use of lower case might just the result of typos.

I wrote earlier that I'd really have liked to have written my court posting while guzzling a bottle of wine (doing that right now). Ian, apparently a kindred spirit, said "well this is going to be a scotch video" as he started hitting the bottle. I can sympathize.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Well done Burnaby and I will watch Runkle's video later, he is usually interesting.

[The Observer]

Hope that helps!

It does, thanks for responding. The only reason I brought up the question was that I saw an online article covering the trial that stated that Colleen had requested that the court refer arbabi to the LSBC. I was curious as to what the master's response was to that request or if it was something that a master had no authority to respond to.

[Notarius]

An excellent, informative, and entertaining write up. Thanks for doing this. It will be interesting to see how this plays out with the Law Society of B.C.

[Frater I*I]

snippy

If there was a salute smilies I'd be using it right now to honor the sacrifice you made to bring us this entertainment

[Notarius]

Naomi does make at least one "typo." In paragraph 1 of the Notice of Civil Claim, she shows her address as "1092 West 8th Avenue" when it is actually 1082 West 8th Ave. in Vancouver. It is correctly shown 3 times in the NOCC.