Jorgensen v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 907

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Jorgensen v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 907 Date: 20211112 Docket: 2103 04906 Registry: Edmonton Between: David Jorgensen Applicant - and - The Director of SafeRoads Alberta Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I.

Introduction [ 1 ] On July 20, 2021, this Court, in a decision reported as Jorgensen v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads) , 2021 ABQB 559 ( Jorgensen #1 ), applied the SafeRoads Alberta Accelerated Review Procedure (SAARP) to an Originating Application (Application), that was filed by David Jorgensen (Mr. Jorgensen) on March 21, 2021. The Application challenged a SafeRoads Alberta Decision reported as Jorgensen (Re) , 2021 ABSRA 96 .

[2] In Jorgensen #1, I concluded, at paras 16-17, that the Originating Application was a prima facie abuse of the Court becausethat document failed to provide adequate pleadings: ... The Application provides no explanation or particulars of the alleged error “in law” by the Adjudicator. The Application does notappear to satisfy the common law requirement that pleadings must provide the alleged “who, when, where, how and what” for thereviewing Court and Respondent. [3] Mr.

Jorgensen was given 14 days to either: 1) discontinue the Originating Application, 2) submit a candidate AmendedOriginating Application, or 3) provide an up to ten-page Written Submission to explain why the Originating Application is a valid action. [4] Counsel for Mr. Jorgensen subsequently contacted the Court, indicated he was facing health issues, and sought an extensionof time to respond to Jorgensen #1. That deadline was extended to September 30, 2021. The Court on September 28, 2021 received aWritten Submission from Mr. Jorgensen.

Counsel for the Director of SafeRoads Alberta (Director) provided a Written Reply on October5, 2021. That completes the SAARP process: Jorgensen #1 at para 21. II. Analysis [5] Mr. Jorgensen takes the position that the Originating Application is a valid pleading that is not an abuse of the Court’sprocesses. Counsel for Mr. Jorgensen states that the Originating Application was properly filed, and that the Originating Applicationexplicitly at paragraph 6 relies on a “Memorandum to be filed at a later date”. The Written Submissions also point to Mr.

Jorgensen’sAffidavit filed with the Court, that allegedly provides the evidence to establish Mr. Jorgensen was not the subject of a random stop. [6] The Written Submission: 1) continues that Mr. Jorgensen has not received disclosure, 2) disputes that important information was received by Mr. Jorgensen in a timely manner, 3) alleges the Adjudicator’s reasoning was a surprise, given the information contained in Jorgensen (Re), 2021 ABSRA 96, and 4) argues issues exist in relation to Mr.

Jorgensen’s Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ss 9 and 10(b) (Charter) rights. [7] Counsel for the Director responds that Mr. Jorgensen’s Written Submission is non-responsive to the issue identified inJorgensen #1. Mr. Jorgensen cannot cure deficiencies in his pleadings by reference to a subsequent document. Affidavits are notpleadings, and are excluded in a judicial review by r 3.22 of Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010. Instead of identifying how theOriginating Application provides the “who, when, where, how and what” of the judicial review, Mr.

Jorgensen has attempted tointroduce new arguments in his Written Submission. None of those new issues are identified in the Originating Application, contrary to r13.6 of the Alberta Rules of Court. [8] I accept and adopt the Director’s Written Reply. I also note that in a r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court process thataffidavit evidence on the substance of a pleading is excluded by r 3.68(3) of the Alberta Rules of Court.

Furthermore, Counsel for Mr.Jorgensen in his Written Submission now introduces Charter-based arguments, which is contrary to Mackay v Manitoba, (SCC), [1989] 2 SCR 357, 61 DLR (4th) 485 that requires the foundation or alleged foundation for pleadings that seek potential reliefpursuant to the Charter must be pled in full. Here, there is no mention at all of the Charter in Mr. Jorgensen’s Originating Application. [9] Mr. Jorgensen has not rebutted the prima facie defect identified in Jorgensen #1. I therefore strike out the March 21, 2021Originating Application in full. III.

Conclusion [10] The Jorgensen v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2103 07019 judicial reviewis struck out pursuant to r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court. Mr. Jorgensen is ordered to pay costs of $1,000 to the Director, forthwith.Counsel for the Director will prepare the Order giving effect to this Memorandum of Decision. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 12th day of November, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Geoff R. Green for the Applicant Rachelle K. Roberts for the Respondent