Mvongo v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 649

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Mvongo v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 649 Date: 20210817 Docket: 2101 02663 Registry: Calgary Between: Roger Mvongo Applicant - and - The Director of Safe Roads Alberta Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D.

Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On July 8, 2021, this Court, in a decision reported as Mvongo v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads) , 2021 ABQB 525 [ Mvongo #1 ], applied the SafeRoads Alberta Accelerated Review Procedure [SAARP] to an Originating Application [Application], that was filed on March 8, 2021 by Roger Mvongo [Mr. Mvongo]. Mr. Mvongo’s Application challenged a January 28, 2021 SafeRoads Alberta decision reported as Mvongo (Re) , 2021 ABSRA 43 .

In Mvongo #1 , I concluded, at paras 16-18 , that the Application was a prima facie abuse of the Court because that document failed to provide adequate pleadings: ... The Application makes only bald allegations. For example, paragraph two of the Application alleges Mr. Mvongo did not have knowledge that a valid demand had been made. A demand for what? Who made the demand? When was the demand made? Why was the demand not “valid”? What was the reasonable excuse? Did Mr. Mvongo fail to comply with the demand, or did he refuse the demand? How did Mr. Mvongo do that? ...

Paragraph 4 alleges the SafeRoads Adjudicator made a “fundamental error in law”. What was that error? Is this a reference to

paragraphs two and three, or something else? [ Mvongo #1 at paras 16-17 .] [ 2 ] Mr. Mvongo on July 8, 2021 was given 14 days to either: 1) discontinue the Application, 2) submit a candidate Amended Originating Application, or 3) provide an up to ten-page Written Submission to explain why the Originating Application is a valid action. [ 3 ] Mr. Mvongo’s Application was filed by a lawyer, however by the time the SAARP process was underway, Mr. Mvongo was self-represented. On July 14, 2021, Mr. Mvongo personally, by letter, reported that he was sick and undergoing medial treatment. Mr.

Mvongo asked for an extension of time to respond to Mvongo #1 . The same day, Mr. Mvongo was granted a 30-day extension to the Mvongo #1 deadline. [ 4 ] The Court, on August 13, 2021, received a large package of materials from Mr.

Mvongo that included: 1. a 12-page item titled “Written Submissions of the Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs’ Application”; 2. a 23-page item titled “Charter Notice: Sections 8, 9, 10(B), 24(1), 24(2): Defence Materials and Cases” (the Originating Application makes no mention at all of the Charter ); 3. two apparently identical photographs of an unidentifiable body part, probably a part of a limb; 4. a copy of Mvongo (Re) , 2021 ABSRA 43 ; 5. several police documents identifying the basis for Mvongo (Re) , 2021 ABSRA 43 ; 6. a copy of Marsh (Re ), 2020 ABTSB 1998 ; 7. an audio file; 8. an Affidavit of Vincent Yuen, apparently a medical doctor, sworn on January 5, 2021; and 9. a court Order giving effect to Mvongo #1 . [ 5 ] The “Written Submissions” document begins with this statement: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW NOT BE AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURT BY THE APPELANT BASED ON EVIDENCES OF UNFAIR AND INCORECT IRS REVIEW DECISION [Sic.] [ 6 ] Based on that statement, and the fact that Mr.

Mvongo did not submit an Amended Originating Application, I conclude that Mr. Mvongo has elected the third SAARP alternative as outlined in Mvongo #1 at para 22 . Mr. Mvongo has provided a “Written Submission” that argues his Application was a valid finding. To do so, Mr. Mvongo must answer why his March 8, 2021 Originating Application is a valid filing. That means Mr. Mvongo must establish on a balance of probabilities that Mvongo #1 is wrong, and Mr.

Mvongo’s March 8, 2021 Originating Application provides adequate pleadings that permit a meaningful response by the Court and the Defendant: Mvongo #1 at paras 16-18, 22 . [ 7 ] I have carefully reviewed Mr. Mvongo’s materials and conclude he has not done so. First, SAARP is a mechanism to conduct a Rule 3.68 process. Rule 3.68(3) prohibits evidence that “... a commencement document or pleading is frivolous, irrelevant or improper ...”. Most of what Mr. Mvongo has submitted is excluded on this basis.

For example, the Court cannot put any weight on, or take notice of, evidence, like the photographs, medical evidence, or the audio file. These materials are excluded by Rule 3.68(3). The text of Mr. Mvongo’s Originating Application is the focus for a Rule 3.68 analysis. [ 8 ] Second, the remainder of Mr. Mvongo’s materials are an expanded legal and factual argument concerns the merit of his overall claims. These go far beyond the content of the March 8, 2021 Originating Application. Those arguments and materials also fail to respond at all to the question which Mr.

Mvongo was instructed to answer with his Written Submission: how does the Application provide adequate pleadings - the alleged factual and legal basis to which the Court and Director will make their response? Mr. Mvongo’s materials, instead, ignore that issue. That means Mr. Mvongo’s August 13, 2021 materials are either or both non-responsive and irrelevant to the defects identified in Mvongo #1 . [ 9 ] I therefore conclude that Mr. Mvongo has not made a proper Written Submission, pursuant to Mvongo #1 at para 22 (1). The Court immediately moves to the next step, and strikes out Mr.

Mvongo’s judicial review Originating Notice in toto pursuant to Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court : Mvongo #1 at para 22 (2). [ 10 ] Furthermore, Mr. Mvongo did not follow this Court’s clear instruction in Mvongo #1 , at para 22 (1), concerning the form and length of the Written Submission. Mr. Mvongo is therefore ordered to pay the Director $1,500 in costs, forthwith. [ 11 ] I direct that the materials received from Mr.

Mvongo, while inadmissible in this context, should be placed on the Docket 2101 02663 file, as potentially relevant to further litigation and appeal steps, and litigation restrictions. [ 12 ] Counsel for the Director will prepare the Order giving effect to this Decision. Mr. Mvongo’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Mr. Mvongo may be served this Decision and the corresponding Order by email to: mroger7750@gmail.com.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 17 th day of August, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Roger Mvongo Self-represented Litigant