Littlejohn v Her Majesty the Queen (#2), 2020 ABQB 762

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Littlejohn v Her Majesty the Queen (#2), 2020 ABQB 762 Date: 20201207 Docket: 2002 00071 Registry: Drumheller Between: Derek Littlejohn Appellant - and - Her Majesty the Queen Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice P.R. Jeffrey _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] This decision addresses whether this Court may entertain the application of Mr.

Littlejohn to review the legality of his conviction, that he maintains was wrongful, following his further submissions on that point as requested in Littlejohn v Her Majesty the Queen , 2020 ABQB 715 .

II. Background [2] On October 1, 2020, Derek Littlejohn filed an Originating Application naming Her Majesty the Queen as the Respondent(the “Application”), along with an Affidavit he swore on September 30, 2020. Mr. Littlejohn is presently incarcerated in theCorrectional Service Canada (the “CSC”) Drumheller Institution. Mr. Littlejohn has been convicted of arson: R v Littlejohn, 2018 ABPC191, aff’d 2020 ABCA 151. [3] In his Application and at a court appearance November 12, 2020, Mr.

Littlejohn claimed that he was wrongfully convicted,should not be in custody, and sought immediate release via an application for habeas corpus. [4] Subsequently, in a decision reported as Littlejohn v Her Majesty the Queen, 2020 ABQB 715, I concluded that: 1. Mr. Littlejohn had non-habeas corpus remedies available to him to challenge what he said was a wrongful conviction (at paras 13-15), and 2. Mr. Littlejohn’s habeas corpus application had no basis in law and, pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (“CPN7”), Mr.

Littlejohnwould be permitted another 14 days provide an up to 10-page Written Submission to address “... why are the case decisions I havereferred to at para 19 above (May v Ferndale Institution and R v Sarson) not binding upon this Court, prohibiting this Court fromevaluating the outcome Mr. Littlejohn’s criminal proceedings via habeas corpus?” [5] The Drumheller Judicial Centre on November 20, 2020 received via email an untitled and undated handwritten six-pagedocument. It appears to be more in the nature of supplemental submissions following the previous Court appearance.

Then, on November23, 2020, the Drumheller Judicial Centre received an eight-page handwritten “Written Submission”. Both items are signed: “SirLittlejohn”. I presume that is the Applicant Derek Littlejohn, whom I refer to herein as “Mr. Littlejohn”. [6] Mr. Littlejohn’s CPN7 Written Submission were due by December 4, 2020: Littlejohn, at para 26. That deadline has passed.After review of Mr. Littlejohn’s two documents, I conclude that no Written Reply from the Respondent is necessary. III.

Analysis [7] In Littlejohn (at para 19) I quoted the Supreme Court of Canada who said “... habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge thelegality of a conviction ...” (May v Ferndale Institution, 2005 SCC 82 at para 36), and “... habeas corpus review ... will not be permittedto extend to an inquiry into the merits of the offender's conviction as on appeal.” (R v Sarson, (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR223 at para 32). [8] Mr. Littlejohn was asked to identify any legal authorities that take precedence over these clear declarations.

Though Mr.Littlejohn cites a number of court decisions, and points to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and legislation, Mr. Littlejohn’ssubmissions and documents are not responsive to this question. He has identified nothing that would affect the directions of the SupremeCourt of Canada that are binding upon me in this matter. That is fatal to his Application. [9] Mr. Littlejohn’s November 23, 2020 Written Submission expands his factual allegations and would have the effect ofbroadening the scope and grounds of his application.

He now says that his habeas corpus application actually complained aboutmisconduct by the CSC, specifically that he was denied a fair hearing before the Parole Board of Canada to obtain parole, and as Mr.Littlejohn has “... been denied by the CSC for an early review due to me claiming my innocence.” [10] This alternative claim for habeas corpus also has no basis: 1. Habeas corpus is only available to challenge a decision that caused a deprivation of liberty.

Decisions that deny release are not abasis for habeas corpus: Dumas v Leclerc Institution, (SCC), [1986] 2 SCR 459; Ewanchuk v Canada, 2017 ABCA 145at paras 19-20. 2. There are distinct processes available respecting parole; they do not proceed in this Court: Armaly v Canada, 2001 ABCA 280; R vLatham, 2018 ABCA 267. 3. The Federal Court has unique and exclusive jurisdiction over reviews of CSC decisions, except for habeas corpus, and then only inresponse to a deprivation of liberty: Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 31. [11] Furthermore, Mr.

Littlejohn’s allegations in relation to the Parole Board of Canada appear to be the same as those dismissedjust a few months ago by Justice Gates in Derek Littlejohn v Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Services Canada (4 June 2020),Drumheller 2002 00031 (Alta QB). Mr. Littlejohn’s repeat challenge to the CSC constitutes a collateral attack on a previously decidedcourt decision. Even if this Court had jurisdiction to hear this challenge to the CSC, the matter is res judicata. We do not hear the samematters twice. Attempting to re-litigate a matter already decided is an abuse of the Court’s process. IV.

Costs [12] Mr. Littlejohn’s Application had no basis in law. He has now attempted to collaterally attack Justice Gates’ previous decisiondismissing his CSC challenge by way of habeas corpus. Mr. Littlejohn’s Application is an abuse of the Court’s process. I note that hewas not assessed costs at the conclusion of the matter before Justice Gates. [13] Subject to being persuaded otherwise by Mr. Littlejohn or the Respondent, he should pay costs to the Respondent. The parties

may address me further in that regard with written submissions of no more than five pages in length, provided they do so within seven days of his receipt of a filed copy of this decision. Both parties have the same deadline. The parties may wish to address in their submissions the considerations set out in the Rules of this Court (see, in particular, Rules 10.28-10.34). [ 14 ] If either party files and serves a submission on costs, the other may respond to it equally briefly and within three days of receipt of the other side’s submission. V. Conclusion [ 15 ] Nothing raised by Mr.

Littlejohn has persuaded me that I have any jurisdiction to grant him the remedy he seeks. I can do nothing more than draw his attention again to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada for appeals of the Alberta Court of Appeal and, failing any entreaty there, to the Minister identified in s 696(1) of the Criminal Code , RSC 1985, c C-46 . [ 16 ] Mr. Littlejohn’s habeas corpus Application is hereby struck out as hopeless and an abuse of the Court’s process. The possibility of an award of costs shall be determined following the deadlines described above.

The Respondent is expected to prepare the resulting order, following my decision on costs. I invoke Rule 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court. Dated at the Town of Drumheller, Alberta this 7 th day of December, 2020. P.R. Jeffrey J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Derek Littlejohn Self-Representing Jeffrey Z.H. Tran Department of Justice Prairie Region, Edmonton Office for the Respondent