Claus v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 768

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Claus v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 768 Date: 20210923 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 _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Associate Chief Justice J.D.

Rooke _______________________________________________________ [ 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]. Claus #1 concluded

that the Originating Application was an abuse of the Court and its processes. [ 2 ] In response to the SAARP procedure, Mr. Claus elected to submit a candidate Amended Originating Application. I concluded that the candidate Amended Originating Application was a valid filing, and, in Claus v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads) , 2021 ABQB 669 [ Claus #2 ], instructed at para 10 : 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 . [Emphasis added.] [ 3 ] Claus #2 issued on August 20, 2021, and was emailed to Counsel for Mr. Claus on that date. The 14-day deadline lapsed on September 3, 2021. No Amended Originating Notice was filed by that deadline. [ 4 ] On September 17, 2021, Counsel for Mr. Claus wrote my office, indicating that an Amended Originating Application had not been filed because of an error on the part of Mr. Claus’s Counsel. Counsel for Mr.

Claus requested a fiat for late filing of the Amended Originating Application. She argued that it is unfair that Mr. Claus be disadvantaged by her error, and that the Director of SafeRoads Alberta [Director] is not prejudiced by the late filing. [ 5 ] Counsel for the Director, on September 20, 2021, replied by letter, and disagreed that a fiat should be issued. The Court had set a clear timeline, there were no allegations that Claus #2 was not received by Counsel for Mr. Claus in a timely manner, and what Counsel for Mr.

Claus proposed is not a fiat, so much as to “resurrect” a proceeding that had been already terminated. That prejudiced the Director. [ 6 ] I conclude that if Counsel for Mr. Claus did, by error, fail to file an Amended Originating Application per the Claus #2 deadline, then that is an issue between Mr. Claus and his lawyer. Furthermore, there simply is nothing that I can do at this point. The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench is functus . That loss of the Court’s jurisdiction happened automatically, without further order, when no Amended Originating Application was filed by Mr. Claus in a timely manner.

There is no timeline to extend, because the Claus v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads) judicial review, as a whole, was terminated after September 3, 2021. [ 7 ] I therefore dismiss Mr. Claus’s application to file a late Amended Originating Application outside the Claus #2 timeline. No costs flow from this decision. To the extent that there may be a remedy for Mr. Claus, that is with the Alberta Court of Appeal. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 23 rd day of September, 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