Wu v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ABQB 1017

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Wu v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ABQB 1017 Date: 20211221 Docket: 2103 17877 Registry: Edmonton Between: Weimin Wu Applicant - and - Attorney General of Canada Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K. G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] Weimin Wu [Mr. Wu] is an inmate residing in the Correctional Service Canada medium security Bowden Institution where he is serving a sentence for second degree murder. Since 2019 Mr.

Wu has filed three habeas corpus applications with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. Each was dismissed as an abuse of the Court: Wu v Canada (Attorney General) , 2021 ABQB 935 at para 1 [ Wu #7 ]. Mr. Wu has an extensive record of litigation misconduct in other Courts. Wu v Canada (Attorney General) , 2021 ABQB 749 at para 20 [ Wu #4 ]. On November 12, 2021, the Attorney General of Canada applied for an Order directing that Mr. Wu become subject to Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 ss 23-23.1 Court access restrictions by what is sometimes called a “vexatious litigant” order.

[ 2 ] The Judicature Act ss 23-23.1 process is now underway. Mr. Wu is subject to interim Court access restrictions until that Application is completed: Wu #7 at para 5 . [ 3 ] The Court has received a package of materials with a cover letter dated November 29, 2021 from Mr. Wu, and addressed to Chief Justice Moreau.

The cover letter states: The restriction wrongfully inflicted upon me requires me to seek your permission to proceed with my motion in respect to my wrongfully denied deportation by way of full parole by Parole Board of Canada. [Sic.] The package attaches an unfiled Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta document titled “Notice of Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus”. [ 4 ] The Court has interpreted this package to be a leave to file application pursuant to the interim Court access restrictions imposed in Wu #7 at para 5 . I have been delegated to respond to Mr. Wu’s leave to file application. II.

Test for Leave to File [ 5 ] “... [A] person subject to Court access control is presumed to engage in illegitimate litigation unless the Court is satisfied otherwise. ...”: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at para 19 , aff’d 2018 ABCA 111 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38204 (14 February 2019). [ 6 ] Permission to initiate litigation or continue stayed litigation both test the merit of Court activities on the same standard.

A person subject to Court access restrictions must: 1. establish reasonable grounds for the litigation; and 2. depose fully and completely as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding. ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 27; V.W.W. v Wasylyshen , 2013 ABQB 327 at para 42 , aff’d 2014 ABCA 121 ). [ 7 ] This threshold, which must be established on a balance of probabilities, is not a high one, and in many ways parallels the test for

summary judgment: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 19 , 26.

The person subject to Court access leave restrictions is expected to put his or her “best foot forward” to establish the basis to initiate or continue an action: Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 87 at paras 26-27. [ 8 ] The documents necessary to seek leave are an affidavit to provide evidence, and, in the case of a new Action or Application, or other litigation step, a copy of the proposed filing: e.g., Re Moore , 2018 ABQB 261 ; Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 . [ 9 ] Leave may be granted in part: Latham (Re) , 2018 ABQB 906 ; Belway v Lalande-Weber , 2017 ABCA 108 at para 10 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 37708 (21 December 2017). [ 10 ] Leave submissions to initiate or continue litigation may also be rejected: 1. where the materials do not satisfy the criteria set out in the Court Access Restriction Order ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38267 (31 January 2019); Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38266 (31 January 2019); Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta v Drover , 2021 ABQB 511 ); 2. if the submissions exhibit indicia of abusive litigation ( ET v Calgary Catholic School District No 1 , 2017 ABCA 349 at para 12 , leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38081 (8 November 2018); Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; Thompson v Alberta Labour Relations Board , 2018 ABQB 220 ; Re Botar , 2018 ABQB 193 ; Trinity Place Foundation of Alberta v Templanza , 2019 ABQB 45 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ; Fletcher v Davidson & Williams LLP , 2019 ABQB 396 ; Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2021 ABQB 208 ; Knutson (Re) , 2021 ABQB 367 ; McMunn v Hok , 2021 ABQB 550 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2021 ABQB 985 ); 3. where the abusive litigant refuses to provide the proposed filing ( Re Thompson , 2018 ABQB 355 ; Onischuk (Re) , 2019 ABQB 229 ); 4. where the abusive litigant provides false information ( Re Gauthier , 2018 ABQB 99 ); and 5. where the abusive litigant fails to provide materials that are required to evaluate the proposed litigation step, such as an appeal transcript or decision ( Alberta Treasury Branches v Hok , 2018 ABQB 316 ; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hayden , 2021 ABQB 985 ).

III. Analysis and Conclusion [ 11 ] Mr. Wu’s leave to file application is rejected on multiple independent grounds: 1. Mr. Wu’s package of materials does not satisfy the criteria for a valid leave application, as specified by paragraph 2 of the November 22, 2021 Interim Court Access Restriction Order in Action No. 2103 10009. Mr. Wu did not provide the supporting affidavit required for a leave to file application. 2. The Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta has no authority to review decisions of the Parole Board of Canada by habeas corpus :

Armaly v Canada, 2001 ABCA 280; R v Latham, 2018 ABCA 267; R v Latham, 2018 ABCA 308. Mr. Wu’s proposed habeas corpusapplication is therefore hopeless. 3. Mr. Wu’s habeas corpus application is also hopeless because Mr. Wu seeks to “set aside” his murder conviction, which isimpossible in law: May v Ferndale Institution, 2005 SCC 82 at para 36; R v Sarson, (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 223 at para32, 135 DLR (4th) 402. 4. Mr. Wu’s grounds for habeas corpus are a collateral attack and an abuse of process. These ground duplicate those considered andrejected in earlier Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta habeas corpus applications by Mr. Wu, including that:

a) Mr. Wu was “unconsciously forced” to commit murder, and is therefore innocent; and

b) Mr. Wu has invented a range of technologies, including a novel telescope and a blood- and honey-based rejuvenation technology,such that Mr. Wu deserves to be released as a public benefactor. (Wu #4; Wu v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ABQB 844). [12] I caution Mr. Wu that this decision is final given paragraph 4 of the Interim Court Access Restriction Order: “An applicationthat is dismissed may not be made again, directly or indirectly.” Any further attempts by Mr.

Wu to make a habeas corpus applicationwith this subject or based on these grounds will be rejected. [13] This Memorandum of Decision may be served upon Mr. Wu by fax to the Bowden Institution. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 21th day of December, 2021. K. G. Nielsen Associate Chief Justice Appearances: Weimin Wu Self-Represented Litigant