Johnsrud v Fader, 2021 ABQB 88

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Johnsrud v Fader, 2021 ABQB 88 Date: 20210203 Dockets: 210061420X1; 210061461X1; 210061487X1; 210061552X1; 210061750X1; 210061800X1; 210061909X1; 210061966X1; 210062097X1; 210062139X1 Registry: Calgary Between: Action No. 210061420X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Director L. Fader, Calgary Remand Centre, Attorney General of Canada Respondents And Between: Action No. 210061461X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Director L. Fader, Calgary Remand Centre, Calgary Police Service Respondents And Between: Action No. 210061487X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and -

Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service, Kevin Gocky, Attorney General, Patrick Perkins, the family of Barbara Svata, Marcella Lilliandra Sitek Respondents And Between: Action No. 210061552X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant And Between: Action No. 210061750X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service, Kevin Gocky, Attorney General of Canada, Johnsrud Family, Sitek Family, Perkins Family, Bigelow Family Respondents And Between: Action No. 210061800X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Director L.

Fader, Calgary Police Service, Kevin Gocky, Attorney General of Canada, Justice Minister David Lametti, Kevin Gocky, Barbara Julie Sitek, the Family of the Svata and Marcela Sitek, Patrick Perkins, Gloria Ann Bigelow and the Bigelow Family Respondents

And Between: Action No. 210061909X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service Respondents And Between: Action No. 210061966X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant - and - Director L. Fader, Calgary Police Service, Kevin Gocky, Attorney General of Canada Respondents And Between: Action No. 210062097X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud Applicant And Between: Action No. 210062139X1 Jody Todd Johnsrud

Applicant - and - Director L. Fader, Calgary Remand Centre, Attorney General of Canada Respondents _______________________________________________________ Endorsement of the Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On January 12, 2021, the Clerk of the Court referred to me an unusual packet of materials that were received by the Court from Jody Todd Johnsrud [Mr. Johnsrud]. Mr. Johnsrud appears to be detained in the Calgary Remand Centre. He is a self-represented litigant. The 25 pages received from Mr.

Johnsrud were not court forms, but instead were Alberta government forms (e.g. “Request for Interview” and “Expenditure Authorization Inmate Trust Account” forms) that have been annotated and filled in with a variety of text. What is common among many of the pages of this packet is that these pages state they are a “Writ of Habeas Corpus” or otherwise relate to habeas corpus . Mr. Johnsrud did not pay filing fees for these materials. [ 2 ] In a decision reported as Johnsrud v Fader , 2021 ABQB 48 [ Johnsrud #3 ], I concluded that Mr. Johnsrud’s packet were intended to be ten separate habeas corpus Applications.

Each of those applications was assigned a separate Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench file. I also concluded that Mr. Johnsrud’s Applications were Apparently Vexatious Applications or Proceedings [AVAPs] and should be evaluated by a document-based show cause process pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 [CPN7]. The CPN7 process stays Mr. Johnsrud’s habeas corpus litigation. [ 3 ] Johnsrud #3 at paras 15-31 provided detailed reasons why it appeared Mr. Johnsrud’s ten Applications were AVAPs. I requested Mr. Johnsrud respond with a Written Submission that answered six questions: 1.

How do Applications 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 seek a remedy that may be provided via habeas corpus ? 2. Why should the Court take jurisdiction of Applications 1, 2, 5, 7, and 10 given Mr. Johnsrud has alternative judicial remedies? 3. How are the named Respondents other than Director L. Fader and the Calgary Remand Centre illegally detaining Mr. Johnsrud? 4. Given Mr. Johnsrud’s allegations in Applications 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 of Charter breaches other than Charter s 10(c), how are Applications 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 valid habeas corpus applications? 5. How do Mr.

Johnsrud’s applications provide adequate pleadings that permit a meaningful Court and Respondent response? 6. How do Mr. Johnsrud’s Affidavits provide facts that support an allegation that he is illegally detained? [ Johnsrud #3 at para 33 .] [ 4 ] Mr. Johnsrud had two weeks to provide his Written Submission pursuant to CPN7 paragraph 3(b). That time has elapsed and no Written Submission has been received from Mr. Johnsrud. I, therefore, pursuant to CPN7 paragraph 3(c), strike out Mr. Johnsrud’s ten habeas corpus applications.

These were each hopeless and abusive proceedings. [ 5 ] This is not the first time that Mr. Johnsrud has initiated hopeless and abusive habeas corpus proceedings in this Court. In 2019 Mr. Johnsrud filed a habeas corpus application also naming the Calgary Remand Centre and its Director as respondents. That habeas corpus application also was reviewed as an AVAP ( Johnsrud v Calgary Remand Centre , 2019 ABQB 817 [ Johnsrud #1 ]) and

then struck out as an abuse of the Court’s processes ( Johnsrud v Calgary Remand Centre , 2019 ABQB 944 [ Johnsrud #2 ]). As happened with the current ten habeas corpus applications, Mr. Johnsrud made no Written Submission in response to Johnsrud #1 : Johnsrud #2 at para 10 . [ 6 ] Mr. Johnsrud then filed an appeal of Johnsrud #1 (Alberta Court of Appeal docket 1901-0349AC), however that appeal was struck out as abandoned after Mr. Johnsrud failed to file an appeal record. [ 7 ] The 2019 habeas corpus application by Mr. Johnsrud was struck out because Mr.

Johnsrud’s habeas corpus application sought to challenge him being denied bail, but habeas corpus is not a remedy for that: Johnsrud #2 at paras 13-17 . Mr. Johnsrud’s 2021 Application 1 and 10 demand a habeas corpus response from the Court for the same reason. Mr.

Johnsrud is therefore re-litigating the same issue in his 2019 and 2021 habeas corpus Applications. [ 8 ] Abuse of habeas corpus is a very serious form of litigation misconduct that causes disproportionate damage to court processes, and therefore warrants a strict response: Hamm v Canada (Attorney General) , 2019 ABQB 247 at paras 183-265 ; Ewanchuk v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 ABQB 237 at paras 170-187 , appeal abandoned, Edmonton 1603-0287AC (Alta CA). [ 9 ] Costs are typically awarded against the applicant when this Court strikes out a habeas corpus application as an abuse of the Court’s processes: Loughlin v Her Majesty the Queen , 2018 ABQB 45 .

The only potentially valid Respondents in this action were the Calgary Remand Centre and its Director: Johnsrud #3 at para 21 . In light of Mr. Johnsrud initiating ten habeas corpus applications, I therefore order Mr. Johnsrud pay the Respondents Calgary Remand Centre and Director L. Fader, together, $1000 in costs, effective immediately. [ 10 ] In light of this history and abuse of the Court’s processes, I also order: 1. any existing Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench fee waivers for Mr. Johnsrud are cancelled, 2. the Clerks of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench shall not grant Mr.

Johnsrud a fee waiver in relation to any habeas corpus application without leave of the Court, and 3. if Mr. Johnsrud wishes to obtain a fee waiver for a habeas corpus proceeding, Mr. Johnsrud shall submit that request, along with his habeas corpus application, to myself or my designate. [ 11 ] Counsel for the Calgary Remand Centre and Director L. Fader is directed to prepare a court order giving effect to this decision. Mr. Johnsrud’s approval of the form and content of that Order is not required: Rule 9.4(2)(c). Mr.

Johnsrud may be served this decision and the interim stay Order by fax to the Calgary Remand Centre. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 3 rd day of February, 2021. J.D. Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: None