Johnsrud v Calgary Remand Centre, 2019 ABQB 944

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Johnsrud v Calgary Remand Centre, 2019 ABQB 944 Date: 20191211 Docket: 190260786U1 Registry: Calgary Between: Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Calgary Remand Centre, Director, Calgary Remand Centre, Correctional Service of Canada, and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] Mr. Jody Todd Johnsrud [Mr.

Johnsrud or Applicant] filed an Originating Notice Application, dated August 27, 2019, for a “writ of habeas corpus with certiorari in aid” and Affidavit, sworn on August 30, 2019 [Application]. He is, presently, an inmate detained at the Calgary Remand Centre. [ 2 ] The Applicant’s Originating Application material reads, inter alia : Basis for this Claim 1. TO TEST the validity of the applicant/accused detention at Calgary Remand Centre, according to

section 10(

c) of the applicants charter

2. New evidence of the applicant of video recordings 3. Recantations of the complainant 4. Crown and state agents blatant disregard for the applicants’ s. 12 of the charter and other violations upon the applicants charter ofRights and Freedoms 5. An Abundance of charter violations of sections1, 6.(2) (a)(b), 7, 8, 9, 10 (a) (b) (c); 11 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h), 12, 14, 15 (1)(2) 6. The applicant request enforcement pursuant to Section 24(1) of the charter 7.

When the Court of Queen’s bench of Alberta CRIMINAL DIVISION commences trial, the applicant will need the witnessessubpoenas Form 16.1 and Form 17 of the Criminal code [Sic] Remedy Sought 1. The applicants immediate release from the Calgary courts centre and Calgary Remand Centre 2. To bring Iphone 4 to court Judge order to the Sheriffs. [Sic] [3] Prior to Mr. Johnsrud’s detention, he was charged on indictment for two counts: committing assault and threat to use a weapon, on or about the 26th day of February, 2019, contrary to sections 266 and 267(

a) of the Criminal Code. [4] On August 21, 2019, Judge McLeod of the Provincial Court of Alberta [PCA] denied bail to the Applicant. [5] Mr.

Johnsrud’s Affidavit, filed with his Originating Notice Application, dated August 27, 2019, indicates that he issubstantively challenging the denial of his bail by the Provincial Court judge who heard his bail application. [6] On October 4, 2019, the Applicant appeared before Justice WT deWit of the Court of Queen’s Bench, who adjourned thematter to October 21, 2019 and directed the Applicant to make a Criminal Code, s 520 application. [7] On October 23, 2019, I issued a decision indexed as: Johnsrud v Calgary Remand Centre, 2019 ABQB 817 [Johnsrud #1]. [8] In that decision, I requested the Applicant to address the following issue: Given that the alleged deprivation of liberty is inthe context of bail, why is the Applicant not pursuing his remedy through the appropriate appeal process provided in s 520 of theCriminal Code? (Johnsrud #1 at para 17). [9] And, at para 18, I further directed, inter alia, as follows: i.

Mr. Johnsrud has 14 days, after this decision is filed and served, to prepare a Written Submission of no more than a total of10 pages, to be filed and served, per CPN7, para 3(b). ii. If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline, the Court will proceed to render its final decision onwhether the Application should be stayed or dismissed, per Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). [10] Mr. Johnsrud has failed to file a Written Submission. Issue [11] Should Mr. Johnsrud’s Application be stayed or dismissed, pursuant to Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court?

Analysis [12] Generally, habeas corpus has no application where a potentially unlawful detention may be reviewed by an effectivealternative mechanism, such as an appellate court (Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 55, [2014] 1 SCR 502) or by “acomplete, comprehensive, and expert procedure” (Peiroo v Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1989), (ON CA), 69 OR (2d) 253, 60 DLR (4th) 574 (Ont CA), leave to appeal to SCC refused, 21602 (23 November 1989); Armaly vCanada (Parole Service), 2001 ABCA 280 at para 2, 299 AR 188, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 29130 (15 August 2002); R vLatham, 2018 ABCA 267 at para 10). [13] Apparently, in the within proceeding, Mr.

Johnsrud has sought to challenge the PCA decision that denied him bail on August21, 2019. [13] In addition, the Applicant contested the merits of some of the underlying charges that relate to the bail denial by referencing

Charter breaches that are not supported by factual evidence that are apparent from his Application. [14] A bail related decision made by a judicial official is not reviewable on habeas corpus application, except in specialcircumstances.

Rather, the appropriate procedure for bail review is prescribed by s 520 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46; seealso R v Pearson, (SCC), [1992] 3 SCR 665, 144 NR 243 [QL]; and R v MacPherson, 2013 ABQB 672. [15] In MacPherson at para 14, Crighton J (as she then was), citing R v Pearson at para 25, wrote that the Supreme Court ofCanada had concluded that: [H]abeas corpus is only available in limited circumstances, such as where the legal validity of an aspect of the bail process wasunconstitutional.

Chief Justice Lamer stressed Outside the narrow circumstances of this case [i.e. claim engaging a special type of constitutional claim], habeas corpus is not a remedyfor a denial of bail. As Wilson J. noted in [R v Gamble, (SCC), [1988] 2 SCR 595] at p. 642, “[u]nder section 24(1) ofthe Charter courts should not allow habeas corpus applications to be used to circumvent the appropriate appeal process”. In the contextof bail, a s 520 review is the “appropriate appeal process” which should not be circumvented by habeas corpus. ...

Allowing the use ofhabeas corpus as a general remedy for a bail review would create precisely this type of interlocutory appeal (see s 784(3) of theCriminal Code, which provides for an appeal against a refusal of habeas corpus). [16] As I noted earlier, the period for Mr. Johnsrud to file and serve his written response, as directed in Johnsrud #1 at para 18 (i)7 (ii), has now passed without any response from him. [17] In light of Mr.

Johnsrud’s failure to file any written response prior to the deadline imposed by this Court on October 23, 2019and, in this circumstance, the availability of bail review as an effective alternative mechanism, I conclude that it is appropriate to renderthis Final Decision and stay his Application (see CPN7, paras 3(c) & (e)). Disposition [18] Accordingly, Mr. Johnsrud’s Originating Application for an order in the nature of habeas corpus, dated August 27, 2019, ishereby dismissed immediately, pursuant to Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 11th day of December, 2019.

J.D. Rooke J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Jody Todd Johnsrud Self-Represented Litigant Peter Buijs for the Respondents