Appeal lost in $246 billion lawsuit

A man who tried suing the National Bank of Canada for more than $246 billion has lost at the highest court level in the province.

In a recent unanimous decision, the P.E.I. Court of Appeal quashed an appeal from Sufian Zuhdi Taha, who previously had his case dismissed in the province’s Supreme Court. Taha filed his statement of claim against the bank in April 2018, seeking general damages of $100 million and punitive exemplary damages of $246 billion.

FROM A1

The bank initially argued before the P.E.I. Supreme Court that the statement of claim was frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse of process.

After a hearing held in Summerside, Chief Justice Tracey Clements agreed.

Taha appealed Clements’ decision.

In the decision from August 2018, Clements said it was one of the clearest cases where it was appropriate to dismiss a claim on the basis that it was frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court.

Clements said the statement of claim consisted of “hyperbole, exaggeration, opinion, rhetoric and scandalous allegations” against the bank and other entities, including the provincial and federal governments.

Taha also previously sued the P.E.I. government in 2015, seeking to abolish what he said was an immoral and prejudicial practice of taxing the poor.

He filed another statement of claim in 2017 seeking damages for the seizure of his properties and again asking for an order to abolish what he described as a prejudicial practice of taxing the poor and working classes in the province.

Another statement of claim he filed against the province in 2017 dealt with the lack of an ombudsman in P.E.I.

Those previous cases were dismissed.

In the most recent decision, the court of appeal wrote it was obvious Taha’s claim against the bank was frivolous and vexatious.

The court of appeal said Taha stated he was trying to expose the fraudulent activities or institutionalized fraud of the bank and the banking sector.

Other allegations in his statement of claim included that the bank was destroying society by charging excessive interest rates, trying to control people by giving them heavy debt loads and printing large amounts of money to a point where it was worthless.

The appeal decision said Taha followed many paragraphs in his notice of appeal with a Qur’an verse seeking an invocation of prayer and Allah’s intervention.

“There is nothing in the notice of appeal that asserts any legal error on the part of the Supreme Court judge or points to any justiciable claim in the underlying proceeding,” the appeal decision said.

Taha also questioned Clements’ competence and ethics and the function of the judiciary, the decision said.

“These are not meritorious claims upon which an appeal could be grounded.”

With the appeal quashed, the judged ordered Taha to pay $1,500 in costs to the bank.