Chung v Canada (Correctional Service Canada), 2021 ABQB 764

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Chung v Canada (Correctional Service Canada), 2021 ABQB 764 Date: 20210922 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 _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Edmonton Court on June 8, 2021 received a faxed packet of 36 pages from Christopher Paul Chung [Mr. Chung]. Mr.

Chung at that time was an inmate in the Correctional Service Canada [CSC] maximum security Edmonton Institution. [ 2 ] Mr. Chung’s materials were referred to me, and I concluded, in a decision reported as Chung v Canada (Correctional Service Canada) , 2021 ABQB 709 [ Chung #1 ], that Mr. Chung’s “Originating Application” appeared to be a hopeless proceeding. On that basis, I conducted a Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] document-based “show cause” review pursuant to CPN7, para 5 to evaluate whether Mr. Chung’s Originating Application should be struck out per Rule 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 .

Mr. Chung was asked to submit an up to ten-page Written Submission that answered how this Court has jurisdiction to hear his Originating

Application, rather than the Federal Court: Chung #1 at para 11. [3] The deadline set in Chung #1 has passed, and no materials or correspondence have been received from Mr. Chung.Furthermore, when Chung #1 was forwarded to Counsel for the Respondent, Counsel reported that he was unable to assist the Court inserving Chung #1 to Mr. Chung. Mr. Chung had been released from CSC custody on August 20, 2021. [4] I, therefore, conclude Mr. Chung has not rebutted the fatal jurisdiction defect identified in Chung #1.

Pursuant to Rule 3.68and CPN7, para 3(c), the Statement of Claim in Action No. 2103 10012 is struck out as a hopeless proceeding, and an abuse of the Court.I also conclude on a separate, independent basis that Mr. Chung’s Originating Application is also moot, since the remedies sought byMr. Chung (Chung #1 at para 8) are challenges to his incarceration conditions. Mr.

Chung is no longer incarcerated, thus CSC cannottake any relevant steps demanded in the Originating Application, even if ordered to do so by the Court. [5] No costs flow from this outcome since this Court does not usually order costs when the Clerk of the Court refers an AVAPpursuant to CPN7 paragraph 5: Peets v Alberta (Justice and Solicitor General), 2019 ABQB 565 at para 6. [6] Counsel for the Respondent will prepare the Order giving effect to this decision. Mr. Chung’s approval of that Order is notrequired, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c). Since Mr.

Chung has not in this action provided a post-incarceration service address, I adopt theapproach of Associate Chief Justice Rooke in Wousse v Peter Lougheed Hospital Centre, 2021 ABQB 547 at para 28, action struck2021 ABQB 606 at para 5, and use the best available mode of service: publication of this decision on the Canadian Legal InformationInstitute website Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 22nd day of September, 2021. John T. Henderson J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Robert Drummond Senior Counsel Justice Canada for the Respondent Correctional Service of Canada, Edmonton Institution