Wu v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ABQB 844

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Wu v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ABQB 844 Date: 20211026 Docket: 2103 10015 Registry: Edmonton Between: Weimin Wu Applicant - and - Attorney General of Canada Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice John T. Henderson _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On August 27, 2021, the Court received a document that was interpreted as being a habeas corpus application by Weimin Wu [Mr.

Wu], an inmate in the Correctional Service Canada Bowden Institution serving a sentence for second degree murder. That habeas corpus application was subject to a Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7] document-based “show cause” procedure: Wu v Canada

(Attorney General), 2021 ABQB 694 [Wu #3]. After receipt of written argument from Mr. Wu, Mr. Wu’s habeas corpus application wasstruck out as an abuse of the Court. Mr. Wu was ordered to pay $500 in costs: Wu v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ABQB 749 [Wu#4]. Mr. Wu has not appealed Wu #4. [2] Mr. Wu in this proceeding argued he should be released on a number of grounds, including that: 1. Mr. Wu was wrongfully convicted of murder, and should be released based on an after-the-fact defence that Mr.

Wu is innocentbecause he was “unconsciously forced” to kill his ex-wife “against his true free will”; 2. judges involved in Mr. Wu’s earlier criminal proceedings are “skillful liars”, “lying computers”, and, like Adolf Hitler andDonald Trump, operate to deceive; and 3. Mr. Wu has made numerous important inventions, including:

a) the “Ultimate Rejuvenation Process”, an anagathic from honey to slow aging, and

b) a universal anti-hacking technology that would prevent nuclear war, the “Ultimate Cyber Security Switch”; Mr. Wu argues he, as a public benefactor, should be released from prison for having developed these technologies. [3] Mr. Wu’s habeas corpus application was struck out on September 20, 2021. On October 14, 2021, a new filing by Mr. Wuwas received by the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, titled: “Notice of Motion for Remedy for the Cruel and Unusual PunishmentInflicted by the Respondent with Years of Locking the Applicant in Segregation Prison Cell/Cage” [Notice].

The Notice also haselements more typical of an Affidavit, such as it is sworn by Mr. Wu, witnessed by a Commissioner of Oaths, and attaches a number ofadditional documents as “Exhibits”. [4] The Notice seeks $3,300 trillion paid by the Respondent to Mr. Wu, and an order “setting aside” Mr. Wu’s second-degreemurder conviction. While Mr. Wu’s Notice is sometimes difficult to understand, Mr.

Wu seems to base his Notice on several claims: 1. his incarceration is cruel and unusual punishment, because he is illegally imprisoned, since Canada has “... successfully deceivedand defrauded and fooled the Federal Court of Canada into forever prohibiting the applicant from seeking any redress there ...”; 2. Mr. Wu “... has over 8,000 inventions a series of which are the greatest inventions ever”, including:

a) the “Ultimate Rejuvenation Process” (now described as industrial scale production of baby blood that will be “cheap as gasoline” andreplace “old blood”,

b) the “Ultimate Cyber Security Switch”, and

c) the “Segmented Telescope”, a telescope deployed in part on Earth and also on the Moon which will demonstrate the Big Bang Theoryis a fraud; 3. judges involved in Mr. Wu’s earlier litigation are masterful liars, like Adolf Hitler and George W. Bush; 4. Mr. Wu was tricked into pleading guilty to murder; and 5. Mr. Wu is innocent of murder because of the “unconsciously forced” defence. [5] 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; Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 3; DG v Bowden Institution,2016 ABCA 52 at paras 41, 124. Mr. Wu’s Notice also mentions habeas corpus, and the Supreme Court of Canada May v FerndaleInstitution, 2005 SCC 82 and R v Sarson, (SCC), [1996] 2 SCR 223 decisions, both of which involve that Courtengaging the habeas corpus process. [6] In light of this Court’s obligation to advance habeas corpus matters in a prioritized manner, Mr. Wu’s Notice wasimmediately reviewed.

That review identified what appears to be potential issues with Mr. Wu’s October 14, 2021 Notice. On that basis,the Court is implementing a CPN7 document-based “show cause” process pursuant to CPN7, para 5 to evaluate whether Mr. Wu’sOctober 14, 2021 Notice should be struck out per Rule 3.68. II. CPN7 [7] 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]. [8] 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. [9] 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 [10] Mr.

Wu’s October 14, 2021 Notice exhibits several apparent defects. A. Collateral Attack [11] In Wu #4, at paras 6-16, I concluded that Mr. Wu had not rebutted the prima facie fatal defects in Mr. Wu’s August 27, 2021filing that were identified in Wu #3. As is apparent from the review above of the substance of Mr.

Wu’s October 14, 2021 Notice, Mr.Wu is raising the same claims that were rejected in Wu #4. [12] A collateral attack is a litigation step or proceeding that challenges, directly or indirectly, a prior court decision or result.Collateral attacks are generally prohibited and an abuse of process: British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v Figliola, 2011SCC 52 at para 28. Collateral attacks subvert “the orderly and functional administration of justice”: Dagenais v Canadian BroadcastingCorp, (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 835 at 871, 120 DLR (4th) 12.

Any action or application that is identified as a collateralattack should be terminated, immediately: Alberta v Pocklington Foods Inc, 1995 ABCA 111 at para 14. [13] Examples of prohibited collateral attacks include: 1. bringing proceedings to determine an issue that has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, 2. using previously raised grounds and issues improperly in a subsequent proceeding, 3. conducting a proceeding to circumvent the effect of a court order, and 4. conducting multiple proceedings with the same litigation objective. [Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 619 [Unrau #2].] [14] I request Mr.

Wu explain why the Notice is not a prohibited collateral attack on Wu #4. B. Impossible and/or Excessive Remedies [15] Mr. Wu seeks that this Court terminate a criminal sentence where Mr. Wu has long ago exhausted his potential statutoryappeals. I request Mr. Wu indicate on what basis this Court possesses authority to “set aside” Mr. Wu’s conviction for second degreemurder. [16] Excessive or impossible remedies make litigation a hopeless proceeding that is an abuse of the Court: Unrau #2 at paras 620-625. Mr. Wu’s Notice seeks $3,300 trillion in damages.

I believe I may take judicial notice that in 2020 the gross national product ofCanada was a little over $2.4 trillion (Canadian). I request Mr. Wu explain how his damages claim, over a thousand times Canada’sgross national product, is not excessive and/or impossible. IV. Conclusion [17] Mr. Wu’s Notice appears to be an appropriate candidate for review per CPN7. The Court therefore seeks a response from Mr.Wu to these three questions: 1. How is the Notice not a collateral attack on Wu #4? 2. What is the legislative or case law authority basis for this Court to “set aside” Mr.

Wu’s conviction and sentence for second-degree murder? 3. How is Mr. Wu’s claim for $3,300 trillion not excessive and/or impossible? [18] Since I have concluded that Mr. Wu’s Notice warrants review per CPN7, the Notice is stayed until further notice. [19] CPN7 now advances to its second step. 1. Mr. Wu has until 14 days after this decision is filed and served to prepare a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10pages, to be filed and served, per CPN7, para 3(b). The Written Submission should be clearly addressed: “To the Attention of JusticeHenderson”. 2.

If no Written Submission is received by the Court by that deadline the Court will proceed to render its final decision on whetherthe Application should be struck out in whole or in part, per Rule 3.68 (CPN7, para 3(c)).

3. If Mr. Wu 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. Wu’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)). [ 20 ] Mr. Wu’s Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench litigation has been filed at no cost to Mr.

Wu since he has obtained fee waivers from the Clerk of the Court. In Wu #4 at paras 19-20 , I review Mr. Wu’s record of abusing the processes of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and his record of problematic and abusive litigation in other Canadian court jurisdictions. Mr. Wu is subject to court access restrictions by what is sometimes called a “vexatious litigant order” in at least Quebec and the Federal Courts. [ 21 ] This Court in Wu #4 at para 21 requested that the Attorney General of Canada initiate a Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 , ss 23-23.1 process to impose court access restrictions on Mr.

Wu’s access to the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. In light of Mr. Wu’s problematic litigation conduct, exercised at no cost to himself, I now exercise this Court’s inherent jurisdiction ( JSG (Re) , 2021 ABQB 555 at paras 14-15 ; Dmyterko v Nissan Canada Inc , 2021 ABQB 286 at paras 5-12 ), and, on an interim basis: 1. cancel all fee waivers obtained by Mr. Wu in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, and 2. order the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Clerks of the Court refuse any fee waiver application by Mr. Wu, unless Mr. Wu has a court order from a justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench that permits Mr.

Wu to apply for a fee waiver. [ 22 ] The Court will prepare and serve the Order staying this action and imposing the interim fee waiver steps. Mr. Wu’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 upon Mr. Wu by fax to the Bowden Institution. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 26 th day of October 2021. John T. Henderson J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None