Claus v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 669

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Claus v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 669 Date: 20210820 Docket: 2101 03616 Registry: Calgary Between: Alex Claus Applicant - and - Her Majesty the Queen - the Crown in Right of Alberta, Director of SafeRoads Alberta Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I.

Introduction [ 1 ] On July 13, 2021, this Court, in a decision reported as Claus v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads) , 2021 ABQB 533 [ Claus #1 ], applied the SafeRoads Alberta Accelerated Review Procedure [SAARP] to a document titled “Originating Application - Notice of Appeal/Reference Under an Enactment” [Application], that was filed on March 12, 2021 by Alex Claus [Mr. Claus]. Mr. Claus’

Application challenged an unreported February 12, 2021 decision of SafeRoads Alberta. [ 2 ] In Claus #1 , I concluded, at paras 17-18 , that the March 12, 2021 filing 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 1 claims a Charter breach. The allegedly illegally obtained evidence is not identified. The person or persons who allegedly breached the Applicant’s Charter rights is not identified. The nature of the allegedly illegal “collection” is not identified. The Application does not identify what

section or sections of the Charter have allegedly been breached. That appears inconsistent with the standard required by Mackay v Manitoba, as well as the common law requirements for adequate civil pleadings. [ 3 ] The Application was also filed in the incorrect form: Claus #1 at para 9 . [ 4 ] Mr.

Claus was given 14 days to either: 1) discontinue the Application, 2) submit a candidate Amended Originating Application in the correct form, or 3) provide an up to ten-page Written Submission to explain why the Originating Application is a valid action. [ 5 ] The Court, on July 26, 2021, received a candidate Amended Originating Application from Counsel for Mr. Claus. Counsel for the Director of SafeRoads Alberta [Director] also submitted a Written Submission, dated August 10, 2021. Counsel for Mr.

Claus then submitted a Written Reply on August 13, 2021. [ 6 ] That completes the SAARP amended application procedure. I, therefore, now proceed to evaluate whether the candidate Amended Originating Application should be approved for filing, or rejected, in whole or in part, as an abuse of the Court’s processes. II. Analysis [ 7 ] The candidate Amended Originating Application expands on the alleged factual basis for Mr. Claus’ challenge to the SafeRoads Alberta decision. Succinctly, the grounds for judicial review are that the Administrator made two errors: 1. Mr.

Claus burped before he provided a breath sample to measure his blood alcohol concentration, and that results in a false “fail” result, and 2. Mr. Claus was not properly notified of the opportunity to conduct a “roadside appeal” by providing a second breath sample tested in a different breath alcohol measuring apparatus, as provided for by Traffic Safety Act , RSA 2000, c T-6 , s 88.11. [ 8 ] The Director in her Written Submission accepts that the candidate Amended Originating Application provides pleadings that correct the defects identified in Claus #1 . I agree.

The Director initially argued that the candidate Amended Originating Application was submitted outside the timeline ordered in Claus #1 . Counsel for Mr. Claus in her Written Reply provided documentary evidence that confirmed the Court had received Mr. Claus’ materials in a timely manner. Counsel for the Director on August 19, 2021 acknowledged that, and withdrew her complaint concerning timing. [ 9 ] The Director also notes that the Form 8 Notice to Obtain Records incorrectly identifies the Respondent, and requests the Court order an Amended Notice to Obtain Records is filed to address this issue.

I agree, and order that step. III. Conclusion [1] I order that Counsel for Mr. Claus shall file the candidate Amended Originating Application received by the Court on July 21, 2021, and an Amended Notice to Obtain Records as indicated above, by 14 days from the date of this Decision. If these documents are not filed as instructed in this Decision by that deadline, then Mr.

Claus’ judicial review is struck out pursuant to Rule 3.68 without further court Order. [2] The interim stay imposed in Claus #1 at para 19 is vacated, without further court order, once the amended documents are filed within the 14-day deadline. [3] No costs result from the Claus v Director of SafeRoads Alberta SAARP process. Counsel for Mr. Claus will prepare the Order giving effect to this Memorandum of Decision. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 20 th day of August, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Katherin J. Beyak Foster, Iovinelli, Beyak, Kothari for the Applicant Alex Claus Rachelle K. Roberts Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for the Respondent Director of SafeRoads Alberta