Oughton v Commissioner of Corrections Anne Kelly, 2021 ABQB 244

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Oughton v Commissioner of Corrections Anne Kelly, 2021 ABQB 244 Date: 20210329 Docket: 2103 00126 Registry: Edmonton Between: John Oughton Applicant - and - Commissioner of Corrections Anne Kelly and Warden of Bowden Institution Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice John T. Henderson _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On February 22, 2021, the Court received a fax from John Oughton [Mr.

Oughton], who is an offender detained in the Correctional Service Canada [CSC] medium security Bowden Institution. The fax included: 1. a fee waiver, 2. a 15-page document titled “Habeas Corpus with Certiorari and Mandamus in Aid” [Application], and 3. a ten-page Affidavit of Mr. Oughton, sworn on December 30, 2020. [ 2 ] These materials were treated as a habeas corpus application. In brief, Mr. Oughton rejected decisions of the Parole Board of

Canada that refused him parole. Mr. Oughton said these decisions and his ongoing detention were a breach of his Charter rights. Mr.Oughton should receive an “absolute unconditional release”. [3] Mr. Oughton’s Application was immediately reviewed given this Court’s obligation to advance habeas corpus matters in aprioritized manner. In a decision reported as Oughton v Bowden Institution, 2021 ABQB 183 [Oughton #1], I identified what appearedto be a number of potentially fatal issues with Mr. Oughton’s Application.

On that basis the Court implemented a Civil Practice Note No.7 [CPN7] document-based “show cause” process pursuant to CPN7, para 5 to evaluate whether Mr. Oughton’s Application should bestruck out per Rule 3.68. Mr. Oughton was requested to provide a Written Submission of up to ten-pages that responded to fourquestions: 1. How is the Application not a collateral attack on decisions of the Parole Board of Canada? 2. How did Mr. Oughton obtain parolee status, per [Dumas v Leclerc Institute, (SCC), [1986] 2 SCR 459, 34 DLR(4th) 427]? 3. How is Mr.

Oughton’s Application not an abuse of process for failing to exhaust alternative administrative remedies? 4. How is Mr. Oughton’s Application the appropriate mechanism to allege Charter ss 7, 9 and 12 breaches, and why was [Lee vCanada (Attorney General), 2018 ABQB 40] wrongly decided? [Oughton #1 at para 27.] [4] The deadline for Mr. Oughton’s Written Submission has passed. Nothing has been received from Mr. Oughton. I thereforeconclude that Mr. Oughton has not rebutted the prima facie defects identified in Oughton #1. Mr.

Oughton’s Application is thereforestruck out as hopeless and abusive proceeding, pursuant to CPN7 para 3(

c) and Rule 3.68. [5] Costs are typically awarded against the applicant when this Court strikes out a habeas corpus application as an abuse of theCourt’s processes: Loughlin v Her Majesty the Queen, 2018 ABQB 45. I therefore order Mr. Oughton pay the Respondents,Commissioner of Corrections Anne Kelly and Warden of Bowden Institution, together, $500 in costs, effective immediately. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 29 day of March, 2021. John T. Henderson J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None.