A B.C. Supreme Court judge has rebuked a presently suspended B.C. lawyer who filed a trespassing claim against her neighbour not based on any legal codes but rather the 鈥渓aw of the land.鈥�
In dismissing claim against her neighbour Colleen McLelland, Associate Judge Susanna Hughes also issued a to-be-determined award of special costs against Arbabi. (Such an award is typically intended to condemn and deter litigation misconduct, notes Vancouver law firm .)
McLelland stood accused by Arbabi of erecting a privacy screen on her rooftop condo deck at 1092 West 8th Ave. just south of downtown Vancouver. Arbabi took issue with the screen and filed a lawsuit against McLelland last year.
The judge concluded in her written submission that Arbabi 鈥渄oes not set out a reasonable legal basis for the claim brought in this court,鈥� adding the claim is 鈥渇rivolous and vexatious insofar as it denies the authority of the Court.鈥�
Hughes further added that Arbabi abused the court process, including by filing 鈥渉er initiating document as an attempt not to litigate legitimately in this Court, but instead to utilize this Court's infrastructure for the purposes of her fictional court.鈥�
Hughes was referring to Arbabi鈥檚 鈥渘otice of requirement of court鈥� filed at the registry.
The notice laid out eight rules of court.
Referring to herself as 鈥渋: a woman; naomi arbabi鈥� Arbabi stated 鈥淚, require the man who at times acts as judge or magistrate to give oath to the following at the naomi arbabi court.鈥�
Arbabi claimed McLelland committed trespassing resulting in loss of enjoyment and loss of value of her property. Arbabi鈥檚 claim seeks relief of $30,000 from the outset of the claim plus $1,000 for each day thereafter the divider remains up or 鈥渢he trespass has been remedied in court.鈥�
While seeking remedy in court, Arbabi took the position 鈥渢his is a claim based on law of the land, and not a complaint based on legal codes acts or statutes.鈥�
McLelland had called for the court to dismiss Arbabi鈥檚 claim, which McLelland said 鈥渋s in the nature of an organized pseudo-legal commercial argument (鈥淥PCA鈥�), which claims have been found to be frivolous and vexatious by a number of courts.鈥�
Hughes agreed with McLelland, noting Arbabi鈥檚 鈥渁ctions bear many of the hallmarks of claims made by OPCA litigants.鈥�
鈥淎lthough she has commenced a claim in this court, the plaintiff also seems to deny that this court has jurisdiction over her, as the claim says that her use of mandated court forms 鈥榮hould not be construed by any man or woman as the submission of i, to any legal titles, legal codes, acts or statutes,鈥欌�� noted the judge.
Hughes wrapped up her judgment by noting as a member of the Law Society of BC, Arbabi 鈥渉as an enhanced obligation to uphold the rule of law鈥� and 鈥渢he oath taken by all lawyers called to the bar in B.C. includes a term that the lawyer 鈥榳ill not promote suits upon frivolous pretences.鈥欌��
Between the hearing on Nov. 29, 2023 and Hughes鈥� judgment on Jan. 19, Arbabi received an interim suspension on Dec. 28, 2023, from an interim-action board of the society, which determined 鈥渆xtraordinary action was necessary to protect the public.鈥�
Editor's note: This article was edited to correct the name of the judge.
