Johnsrud v Fader, 2021 ABQB 48

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Johnsrud v Fader, 2021 ABQB 48 Date: 20210119 Dockets: 210061420X1; 210061461X1; 210061487X1; 210061552X1; 210061750X1; 210061800X1; 210061909X1; 210061966X1; 210062097X1; 210062139X1 Registry: Calgary Between: Action No. 210061420X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Director L. Fader, Calgary Remand Centre, Attorney General of Canada Respondents And Between: Action No. 210061461X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Director L. Fader, Calgary Remand Centre, Calgary Police Service Respondents And Between: Action No. 210061487X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and -

Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service, Kevin Gocky, Attorney General, Patrick Perkins, the family of Barbara Svata, Marcella Lilliandra Sitek Respondents And Between: Action No. 210061552X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant And Between: Action No. 210061750X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service, Kevin Gocky, Attorney General of Canada, Johnsrud Family, Sitek Family, Perkins Family, Bigelow Family Respondents And Between: Action No. 210061800X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Director L.

Fader, Calgary Police Service, Kevin Gocky, Attorney General of Canada, Justice Minister David Lametti, Kevin Gocky, Barbara Julie Sitek, the Family of the Svata and Marcela Sitek, Patrick Perkins, Gloria Ann Bigelow and the Bigelow Family Respondents

And Between: Action No. 210061909X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service Respondents And Between: Action No. 210061966X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service, Kevin Gocky, Attorney General of Canada Respondents And Between: Action No. 210062097X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant And Between: Action No. 210062139X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud

Applicant - and - Director L. Fader, Calgary Remand Centre, Attorney General of Canada Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [1] On January 12, 2021, the Clerk of the Court referred to me an unusual packet of materials that were received by the Courtfrom Jody Todd Johnsrud [Mr. Johnsrud]. Mr. Johnsrud appears to be detained in the Calgary Remand Centre. He is a self-representedlitigant [SRL]. The 25 pages received from Mr.

Johnsrud are not court forms, but instead are Alberta government forms (e.g. “Requestfor Interview” and “Expenditure Authorization Inmate Trust Account” forms) that have been annotated and filled in with a variety oftext.

What is common among many of the pages of this packet is that these pages state they are a “Writ of Habeas Corpus” or otherwiserelate to habeas corpus. [2] Applications for habeas corpus receive priority treatment by our Court, given the unique status of this remedy as a swift,summary mechanism by which to evaluate the alleged illegality of a detention: In Re Storgoff, (SCC), [1945] SCR 526at 590-591, [1945] 3 DLR 673; Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 3; DG v Bowden Institution, 2016 ABCA 52 at paras41, 124.

In light of this Court’s obligation to advance habeas corpus matters as priorities, I immediately reviewed Mr. Johnsrud’smaterials. [3] The documents received from Mr. Johnsrud are difficult to understand. It appears that Mr. Johnsrud has filed a total of tenhabeas corpus applications. Some name different parties. Some name no respondents. Some pages are duplicates. Some items describethe same or similar complaints. What follows is my attempt to discern what Mr. Johnsrud has submitted to the Alberta Court of Queen’sBench.

Page numbers refer to the location of the particular item in the 25 pages received by the Court. I have added action numbers inaccordance with the Clerk’s allotment on filing. Action No. 210061420X1 - Application 1, page 1, undated – Facebook Publication Respondents: Director L. Fader, Calgary Remand Centre, Attorney General of Canada. Complaint: Mr. Johnsrud’s image was published on Facebook which means his right to a fair trial has been breached. Mr.

Johnsrud wrote“I do not consent” on his bail order which invalidates his detention and warrants “immediate discharge of criminal charges and release tothe community”. Action No. 210061461X1 - Application 2, pages 2-4, undated – Falsely Accused #1 Respondents: Director L. Fader, Calgary Remand Centre, Calgary Police Service. Complaint: Mr.

Johnsrud reports he was falsely accused, describes an incident involving firearms, that there was an exculpatorystatement by a witness, so “[t]he falsely accused requests the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta to discharge all charges related to thiswrongly accused charge of assault”. Action No. 210061487X1 - Application 3, page 5, undated – Kurt - COVID-19 Regulations Non-Compliance #1 Respondents: Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service, Kevin Gocky, Attorney General, Patrick Perkins, the family of Barbara Svata,

Marcella Lilliandra Sitek. Complaint : “Kurt” of the Calgary Police Service said he had COVID-19, and was not wearing a mask during court proceedings. “These infected people should be Quarantined from the Non-infected by militia law.” Mr. Johnsrud says he should have back pay on this basis. Action No. 210061552X1 - Application 4, page 6, undated – Federchuk Non-Directions Respondents : none identified. Complaint : Mr. Johnsrud alleges “the lawyer Dale Federchuk” had not sought directions from Mr. Johnsrud, which breached Mr. Johnsrud’s Charter s 7 rights. There are difficult to understand comments about a Dr.

Hashman, Barbara Julie Sitek, Patrick Perkins, and Gloria Bigelow. No remedy is indicated. Action No. 210061750 - Application 5, page 7, undated - Kurt - COVID-19 Regulations Non-Compliance #2 Respondents : Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service, Attorney General of Canada, Johnsrud Family, Sitek Family, Perkins Family, Bigelow Family. Complaint : this document repeats the Application 3 complaint about “Kurt” of the Calgary Police Service. Mr. Johnsrud demands “[t]o be released immediately into the community” because he is falsely accused and “social distancing laws” were violated.

That meant police had “committed a crime before arrest”, which makes Mr. Johnsrud’s arrest a “false arrest”, and that breaches Charter ss 7 and 12. Action No. 210061800X1 - Application 6 (Affidavit), pages 8-9, and 25 dated December 21, 2020 – Time is Valuable Respondents : Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service, Attorney General of Canada, Justice Minister David Lametti, Kevin Gocky, Barbara Julie Sitek, “the Family of the Svata and Marcela Sitek”, Patrick Perkins, Gloria Ann Bigelow and the Bigelow Family. Contents : Mr.

Johnsrud swears that “... my time is very valuable as each person’s time is, and each person only has so much time to live. God willing.” The affidavit attaches one page that appears to be a Christmas themed black and while artwork with handwritten annotations that are difficult to understand. Action No. 210061909X1 - Application 7, page 10, dated December 21, 2020 – COVID – 19 – s 12 Charter Breach Respondents : Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service. Complaint : Mr. Johnsrud complains he is falsely accused and is a victim. He says the “COVID 19 crisis is a

section 12 of the charter breach upon me.” No purified air or oxygen tank has been provided to him. He also indicates he has carpal tunnel syndrome. Action No. 210061966X1 - Application 8, pages 11-12, undated – Perkins Smothering Respondents : Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service, Attorney General of Canada. Complaint : Mr. Johnsrud states he has been defamed by named individuals who are drug addicts, fraudsters, liars, and “illegitimate people”. He describes being assaulted and smothered by Patrick Perkins, “a civilian”, but was rescued by a Calgary Police Service officer. Mr.

Johnsrud says he deserves the same Charter s 7 rights as every Canadian, and he should have a Charter ss 24(1) and 24(2) remedy. Action No. 210062097X1 - Application 9, pages 13-15, dated December 20, 2020 – Obstruction of Justice Respondents : none identified. Complaint : Mr. Johnsrud claims that Sheriffs at the Calgary Remand Centre “keep obstructing justice on me”, and describes an assault allegedly committed against him by a Calgary Remand Centre staff member. Staff call Mr. Johnsrud a rat. Mr. Johnsrud says he wants the staff member who allegedly assaulted him charged criminally. Mr.

Johnsrud also complains that Calgary Remand Centre staff are not taking steps to minimize the spread of COVID-19. He explains he has hand nerve issues, and that, and COVID-19, “has taken my tattoo practice from me.” Mr. Johnsrud indicates he should have computer and internet access, and failure to provide that is a breach of his Charter s 11 right to full answer and defence. Action No 210062139X1 - Application 10, pages 16-20, undated – Falsely Accused #2 Respondents : Director L. Fader, Calgary Remand Centre, Attorney General of Canada. Complaint : Mr.

Johnsrud complains he was falsely accused on December 8, 2020 after an altercation with a neighbor. Mr. Johnsrud provides a lengthy narrative of related events, including his subsequent detention. He indicates his right to bail was denied, and that “seriously breached” Charter ss 2(b), 2(d), 7, 8, 9, 10(a-b), 11(a-b), 12, and 15. Mr. Johnsrud’s subsequent detention in the Calgary Remand Centre was “torture”, and breach of Charter ss 7 and 12. Mr.

Johnsrud also indicates a group of drug users “have been on messenger, telling deceit to each other.” [ 4 ] Pages 21-24 are not considered to be separate applications, but, rather, are exact duplicate copies of Applications 3-5, and thus, these pages have been destroyed. Page 25 is a black and white line drawing of poppies with handwritten annotations whose meaning is not apparent, but it has been added to Application 6, to which it appears to pertain. [ 5 ] I have made this detailed review of Mr. Johnsrud’s materials, that he calls habeas corpus applications, for three reasons.

The first reason is a combination of three factors:

1. the Court has an obligation to prioritize habeas corpus because habeas corpus defends Canadians against illegal detention by government actors; 2. Mr.

Johnsrud is an SRL, and the Supreme Court of Canada in Pintea v Johns , 2017 SCC 23 determined that the rules that govern litigation do not apply in the same manner for SRLs, who instead have extra procedural rights beyond those of litigants with lawyers, and that judges have additional obligations to SRLs, such as to provide information on litigation processes and options; and 3. when applying Rule 3.68 to habeas corpus materials submitted by SRLs, those documents are read together to more fairly evaluate the validity of the applicant’s claim: MacKinnon v Bowden Institution , 2017 ABQB 574 at para 30 ; Gogan v Attorney General of Canada , 2017 ABQB 609 at paras 26-31 . [ 6 ] The second reason for my detailed review is a counterbalancing factor.

The Court needs to manage its litigation processes, that are a limited resource, so as to avoid those being wasted and misused: Canada v Olumide , 2017 FCA 42 at para 18-20 . Abuse of habeas corpus puts unusual strains on provincial superior courts of inherent jurisdiction: Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 ABQB 237 at paras 170-187 ; Hamm v Canada (Attorney General) , 2019 ABQB 247 at paras 183-265 .

The Alberta Court of Appeal has observed the importance of habeas corpus triage processes “... to weed out frivolous and vexatious ...” habeas corpus claims: Wilcox v Alberta , 2020 ABCA 104 at para 63 . [ 7 ] The third reason is that these habeas corpus applications, while on their face seemingly have equal merit, as discussed below, some may have more individual merit than others and thus should be separated into separate applications, as I have so instructed the Clerk to file as 1 – 10, as identified above.

These applications were set down to be heard on February 5, 2021 in Calgary Appearance Court. [ 8 ] I have concluded after my review of Mr. Johnsrud’s materials that were referred to me by the Clerk of the Court that these documents are Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceedings [AVAPs] and should be evaluated by a document-based show cause process pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7]. The CPN7 process in this decision stays Mr. Johnsrud’s habeas corpus litigation. The scheduled February 5, 2021 appearances are therefore cancelled. [ 9 ] As will become apparent, although Mr.

Johnsrud has filed what appears to be ten distinct habeas corpus applications, I will, for the purpose of the CPN7 process, group these applications together in a single CPN7 process. I adopt this approach for several reasons: 1. to efficiently use Court, litigant, and judicial resources required to respond to Mr. Johnsrud’s materials; 2. the Respondents named to Mr. Johnsrud’s applications, to the degree they can be identified, often overlap; 3. several of Mr. Johnsrud’s applications involve the same or apparently related incidents; and 4. Mr.

Johnsrud’s applications share common issues. [ 10 ] The ten applications have been assigned 10 different action numbers as above, should individual decisions need to be made in the future. II. CPN7 [ 11 ] CPN7 is a practice implemented by the Court to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

This practice is intended to provide a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response to the litigants: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 [ Unrau #1 ]. [ 12 ] If, on initial review by the Court, the pleading appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue(

s) which may be a basis to apply Rule 3.68 and stays the action. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity, within 14 days, to provide the Court a Written Submission of up to a total of ten pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the pleading is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue. The Written Submission must be served on the other parties to the litigation. [ 13 ] CPN7 is not for “close calls”, but instead the Court intervenes by this mechanism when the defect(

s) in question are “apparent on the face of the pleading”, and the suspect pleadings are “clearer cases of abuse”: Unrau #1 , at paras 22, 24 . Only restricted forms of evidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since this process has a very narrow focus, and operates to examine a single document and its content: Ubah #2 at paras 24-48. There are exceptions to that rule.

For example, the Court may examine other documents in the same proceeding that are related to the suspect filing ( Ubah #2 at para 35), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt to litigate an issue that has already been decided or closed ( Ubah #2 at para 45). III. Analysis [ 14 ] Mr. Johnsrud’s filings share a number of issues. A.

Relief by Habeas Corpus [ 15 ] Habeas corpus has one powerful but specialized function: 1) to test whether a detention is or is not lawful, and 2) if that detention is not lawful, to order release: Charter s 10(c); Mission Institution v Khela , 2014 SCC 24 at para 30 . The only remedy that

may result from a habeas corpus application is release: Charter, s 10(c); Mission Institution v Khela at paras 27-30. Slatter JA recentlystressed in R v Latham, 2018 ABCA 308 at para 7, leave to SCC refused, 38437 (14 March 2019) that habeas corpus is not “... somesort of legal Swiss Army knife that can be used to engage any grievance ... Habeas corpus is a limited remedy designed to addresswrongful detentions and loss of liberty only.” [16] Applications 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 do not appear to directly or indirectly seek release from some form of detention. I thereforerequest that Mr.

Johnsrud indicate how Applications 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 seek a remedy that may be provided by habeas corpus. B. Alternative Judicial Remedies [17] In Mission Institution v Khela, the Supreme Court of Canada at para 55 concluded that habeas corpus is not available wherea court appeal is available as an alternative remedy. For example, Mr.

Johnsrud may appeal a decision that denies him bail, so if Mr.Johnsrud disagrees with a bail decision then his remedy is to appeal that decision, rather than challenge the legality of his detention byhabeas corpus: R v MacPherson, 2013 ABQB 672 at para 14; R v Pearson, (SCC), [1992] 3 SCR 665 at para 25, 144NR 243. [18] Applications 1 and 10 appear to complain Mr. Johnsrud was improperly denied bail. I request Mr. Johnsrud explain how theseapplications seek a remedy that is available by habeas corpus. [19] Mr.

Johnsrud in Applications 2, 5, 7, and 10 alleges he is wrongfully accused, and (explicitly or implicitly) that he shouldtherefore be released on that basis. Mr. Johnsrud appears to allege some persons are bad witnesses, and/or that there is exculpatoryevidence that relates to him. In criminal proceedings, the weight that should be placed on witness and other evidence is a question forpreliminary hearings and trial. I therefore request Mr.

Johnsrud identify a legal basis to challenge findings of fact and law via habeascorpus, when those findings of fact and law are the critical function of criminal trial proceedings currently underway. C. Allegedly Illegal Existing Detention [20] The function of habeas corpus pursuant to Charter s 10(

c) is that habeas corpus requires a government actor who detainedthe applicant to provide a legal basis for that detention. Habeas corpus has no application to historic or hypothetical detentions: Dumas vLeclerc Institute, (SCC), [1986] 2 SCR 459 at paras 12-14, 34 DLR (4th) 427.

As Thomas J observed in Ewanchuk vCanada (Attorney General), 2017 ABQB 237 at para 23, appeal abandoned, Edmonton 1603-0287AC (Alta CA): “Habeas corpus isonly a remedy for the here and now.” The minimum threshold of a deprivation of liberty that attracts habeas corpus review is a“substantial change” that is a “new detention”: R v Miller, (SCC), [1985] 2 SCR 613 at 637. [21] Mr. Johnsrud appears to be detained in the Calgary Remand Centre. That is a detention that may attract review by habeascorpus. However, Mr.

Johnsrud’s applications name many other government actors and what appear to be some private individuals and“families”. These parties, other than the Calgary Remand Centre and its Director, are not allegedly involved in Mr. Johnsrud’s currentdetention. It would appear Mr. Johnsrud cannot obtain a remedy from these parties. They are not the ones who have allegedly detainedMr. Johnsrud. [22] I therefore ask Mr. Johnsrud to indicate why he has named parties other than Director L.

Fader and the Calgary RemandCentre as Respondents in certain of his habeas corpus applications, and why those parties should not be struck out on that basis? D. Non-Habeas Corpus Charter Remedies [23] Mr. Johnsrud’s Applications 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 state his Charter ss 2(b), 2(d), 7, 8, 9, 10(a-b), 11 or 11(a-b), 12, and 15 rightshave been breached. None of these applications mention Charter s 10(

c) that codifies the common law right to habeas corpus relief. [24] The Supreme Court of Canada and the Alberta Court of Appeal have ruled that a party who alleges a breach of a Charter righthas the obligation to prove that breach on a balance of probabilities: R v Collins, (SCC), [1987] 1 SCR 265 at para 21,38 DLR (4th) 508; United States of America v Anekwu, 2009 SCC 41 at para 29; R v Luong, 2000 ABCA 301 at para 12.

In R vSarson, (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 223 at para 43, 15 DLR (4th) 402, Sopinka J was explicit that habeas corpus reliefbecomes available only once a Charter breach is established on a balance of probabilities. [25] Canadian courts have therefore ruled Charter applications are incompatible with habeas corpus proceedings: Brown vCanada (Public Safety), 2018 ONCA 14 at para 52, leave to appeal refused, 38005 (1 November 2018); Toure v Canada (Public Safety& Emergency Preparedness), 2018 ONCA 681 at para 79, leave to appeal to SCC refused, 38355 (28 February 2019); Hamm v Canada(Attorney General), 2019 ABQB 247 at paras 129-155; Haug v Warden of Dorchester Institution, 2020 NBCA 32 at paras 29-36.

Asuccessful Charter application must occur before Charter s 10(

c) habeas corpus remedies are available. [26] I therefore request Mr. Johnsrud indicate why Applications 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 are habeas corpus applications, rather thatcomplaints that should be advanced by a non-habeas corpus Charter originating application or lawsuit? E. Inadequate Pleadings [27] An application or statement of claim sets the issues to which the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of the caseit must meet: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18 at para 87.

Proper pleadings require more than simply bare assertions, or “baldallegations” of wrongdoing: GH v Alcock, 2013 ABCA 24 at para 58; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA227 at paras 16-20. Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate to theresponding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and

Welfare) at para 19. The Supreme Court of Canada in Mackay v Manitoba, (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 357, 61 DLR (4th)485, instructed that a factual foundation, or an alleged factual foundation, is an absolute requirement for pleadings that seek potentialCharter relief. [28] Mr. Johnsrud cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Respondents to “fill inthe blanks”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 20.

A lack of specificity is not merely a technical defect, butgoes to the core of the claim: GH v Alcock at para 58, citing AL v Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services) (2006) (ON CA), 274 DLR (4th) 431, 218 OAC 150 (Ont CA). Inadequate pleadings abuse the court’s process because arespondent cannot defend against unclear and non-specific claims and the court cannot control the proceedings, identify the proposedargument, or make findings on the relevant facts: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 629 [Unrau #2] [29] Mr.

Johnsrud’s Applications often provide little information about the alleged basis for habeas corpus. Mr. Johnsrud incertain instances does not identify an illegal detention, or why that detention is illegal. He does not indicate how the parties he hasnamed as Respondents detained him, or could release him. Certain named Respondents, such as Kevin Gocky, “the family of BarbaraSvata”, and Marcella Lilliandra Sitek in Application 3, are not mentioned in the body of Mr. Johnsrud’s documents. In Application 10,Mr.

Johnsrud says eleven different Charter rights were “grievously and seriously breached” when he was denied bail, but provides noparticulars at all for all but one of those rights. [30] I therefore request Mr. Johnsrud indicate how his habeas corpus applications provide pleadings that allow a meaningful Courtand Respondent response. F. Inadequate Affidavits [31] A person who files a habeas corpus application must supply affidavit evidence to support that application that discloses thealleged facts on which the claim of illegal detention is based: Wilcox v Alberta at para 63.

While this Court takes a very liberal approachto document form and structure when reviewing habeas corpus applications, Mr. Johnsrud’s two (identical) Affidavits provide norelevant content, and instead attach artwork as the only exhibits. [32] I request Mr. Johnsrud indicate how his Affidavits provide an alleged factual basis on which the Court and Respondents canevaluate his habeas corpus claims. IV. Conclusion [33] Mr. Johnsrud’s habeas corpus applications appears to be suitable candidates for review per CPN7. The Court therefore seeksa response from Mr. Johnsrud on these questions: 1.

How do Applications 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 seek a remedy that may be provided via habeas corpus? 2. Why should the Court take jurisdiction of Applications 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 given Mr. Johnsrud has alternative judicial remedies? 3. How are the named Respondents other than Director L. Fader and the Calgary Remand Centre illegally detaining Mr. Johnsrud? 4. Given Mr. Johnsrud’s allegations in Applications 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 of Charter breaches other than Charter s 10(c), how areApplications 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 valid habeas corpus applications? 5. How do Mr.

Johnsrud’s applications provide adequate pleadings that permit a meaningful Court and Respondent response? 6. How do Mr. Johnsrud’s Affidavits provide facts that support an allegation that he is illegally detained? [34] In the result, Mr. Johnsrud’s habeas corpus applications are stayed. CPN7 now advances to its second step, namely answersto the questions posed, as summarized in the preceding paragraph. 1. Mr. Johnsrud has until 14 days after this decision is filed to file and serve a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10pages, pursuant to CPN7, para 3(b).

The Written Submission should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Associate Chief JusticeRooke”. 2. If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline, the Court will proceed to render its final decision on whetherthe habeas corpus applications should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Mr. Johnsrud provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Respondents each have seven days to make a Written Replyof up to a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)).

The Written Reply should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of AssociateChief Justice Rooke”. 4. After receipt of Mr. Johnsrud’s Written Submission, and the Respondents’ Written Replies, if any, the Court will render its finaldecision on whether the Mr. Johnsrud’s habeas corpus applications should be struck out in whole or in part, pursuant to Rule 3.68(CPN7, para 3(e)). [35] The Court will prepare and serve the Order staying this action. Mr. Johnsrud’s approval of that Order is dispensed with,pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Mr.

Johnsrud may be served this decision and the interim stay Order by fax to the Calgary Remand Centre.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 19 th day of January, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None