Chung v Canada (Correctional Service Canada), 2021 ABQB 709

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Chung v Canada (Correctional Service Canada), 2021 ABQB 709 Date: 20210903 Docket: 2103 10012 Registry: Edmonton Between: Christopher Paul Chung Applicant - and - Correctional Service of Canada, Edmonton Institution Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice John T. Henderson _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] The Edmonton Court on June 8, 2021 received a faxed packet of 36 pages from Christopher Paul Chung [Mr. Chung]. Mr.

Chung is presently an inmate in the Correctional Service Canada [CSC] maximum security Edmonton Institution. The cover sheet for the faxed passage states: “This is for the Attention of ‘Matt’ a lawyer in your office.” There is no Court Legal Counsel employed by the Court with the first name “Matt”.

[2] In addition to the cover sheet, Mr. Chung’s packet includes: 1. a three-page document titled “Originating Application”; 2. an eight-page Affidavit of Mr. Chung dated May 25, 2021; 3. a three-page “Addendum Affidavit” of Mr. Chung, dated June 8, 2021; 4. an eight-page document titled “COVID-19: Institutional Cleaning Step-by-Step Guide”, dated July 16, 2020; 5. four “Message from the Commissioner” documents from CSC Commissioner Anne Kelly; 6. a completed “Inmate Request” form, indicating the Warden of the Edmonton Institution would meet with Mr.

Chung in personon April 16, 2021 “... to discuss various ideas and concerns.”; and 7. a Fee Waiver application. [3] This Court is required by law to place a special priority on any application for habeas corpus, given the unique status of thisremedy in the UK common law tradition as a swift,

summary mechanism to evaluate the alleged illegality of a detention: In Re Storgoff, (SCC), [1945] SCR 526 at 590-591, [1945] 3 DLR 673; Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 3; DG vBowden Institution, 2016 ABCA 52 at paras 41, 124. Mr. Chung has previously conducted habeas corpus proceedings in this Court:Chung v Edmonton Institution, 2019 ABQB 744, application struck out 2019 ABQB 827. [4] Mr.

Chung’s materials were referred to me in light of this Court’s obligation to advance habeas corpus matters in aprioritized manner, and since habeas corpus applications received by the Court very often take unusual and irregular forms. While Iconclude that Mr. Chung is not seeking habeas corpus, his “Originating Application” nevertheless appears to be a hopeless proceeding.On that basis, the Court is implementing a Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] document-based “show cause” process pursuant to CPN7,para 5 to evaluate whether Mr. Chung’s Originating Application should be struck out per Rule 3.68. II.

CPN7 [5] CPN7 is a practice implemented by the Court to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has noprospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

This practice is intended to provide a timely, proportionate, and cost-effectiveresponse to the litigants: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2018 ABQB 874, 79 Alta LR (6th) 411 [Unrau #1]. [6] If, on initial review by the Court, the pleading appears to be unmeritorious, has no prospect of success, or is otherwiseabusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue(

s) which may be a basis to applyRule 3.68 and strike out the pleading. The party who filed the pleading is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide the Courta Written Submission of up to a total of ten pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the pleading is a legitimate actionand should be permitted to continue. The Written Submission must be served on the other parties to the litigation. [7] 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 restrictedforms of evidence are considered by the Court when it conducts a CPN7 review, since this process has a very narrow focus, and operatesto examine a single document and its content: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited, 2019 ABQB 347 at paras 24-48 [Ubah #2].One exception to that rule is the Court may examine other documents in the same proceeding which are related to the suspect filing:Ubah #2, at para 35. III. Analysis [8] Mr.

Chung’s Affidavits describe what he says are living conditions in the Edmonton Institution. The Originating Applicationseeks that the Edmonton Institution: 1. take “... all reasonable steps to ensure I am in a safe and healthful environment ...”; 2. provide “... a living and working environment ... free of practices that undermine a person’s sense of personal dignity.”; 3. “... ensure that I am adequately fed ...”; 4. provide Mr. Chung with “toilet articles” and other “personal health and cleanliness” necessities; 5. provide Mr. Chung an hour of indoor or outdoor exercise every day; and 6. permit Mr.

Chung four hours per day in the “mainstream inmate population” to “... assemble peacefully and associate with otherinmates within the penitentiary ...”. In short, Mr. Chung is explicitly complaining about the conditions of his incarceration within the Edmonton Institution. Mr. Chung isnot seeking to be released from what he alleges is an illegal detention. [9] This Court’s jurisdiction in relation to CSC facilities, their operations, and inmates, is extremely limited.

Federal Courts Act,RSC 1985, c F-7, s 18(1) gives the Federal Courts exclusive jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari in relation to federal boards,commissions, or other tribunals. In Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at paras 31-32, Lebel J is explicit that any “decisions

made within federal prison walls” are the sole domain of the Federal Courts - including “writs of certiorari” - except for habeas corpus which is omitted from the relevant Federal Courts Act provisions. [ 10 ] I therefore request Mr. Chung indicate how this Court has jurisdiction to hear his Originating Application, given Federal Courts Act s 18(1) and Mission Institution v Khela . IV. Conclusion [ 11 ] Mr. Chung’s Originating Application appears to be an appropriate candidate for review per CPN7. The Court therefore seeks Mr.

Chung answer how this Court has jurisdiction to hear his Originating Application, rather than the Federal Court. Since I have concluded that Mr. Chung’s Originating Application warrants review per CPN7, the Originating Application is stayed until further notice. [ 12 ] CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Mr. Chung has until 14 days after this decision is filed and served to prepare a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages, to be filed and served, per CPN7, para 3(b). The Written Submission should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Justice Henderson”. 2.

If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline the Court will proceed to render its final decision on whether the Application should be struck out in whole or in part, per Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)). 3. If Mr. Chung provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Respondent has seven days to make a Written Reply of up to a total of 10 pages in length (CPN7, para 3(d)). The Written Reply should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of Justice Henderson”. 4. After receipt of Mr.

Chung’s Written Submission and the Respondent’s Written Reply, if any, the Court will render its final decision on whether the Notice should be struck out in whole or in part, per Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 13 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order staying this action. Mr. Chung’s approval of that Order is dispensed with, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). This decision and the corresponding Interim Stay Order may be served to Mr. Chung by fax to the Edmonton Institution. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 3 rd day of September, 2021. John T. Henderson J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None