Uzzi v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 940

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Uzzi v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 940 Date: 20211124 Docket: 2103 15497 Registry: Edmonton Between: Rosemary Uzzi Applicant - and - SafeRoads Alberta Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On November 5, 2021, Rosemary Uzzi (Ms. Uzzi) filed a handwritten Originating Application naming “SafeRoads Alberta” as the Respondent (Application). The entire body of the Application reads: Basis for this claim:

1. To appeal SafeRoads Alberta Notice of Administrative Penalty Immediate Roadside Sanction decision, and apply for Stay of Proceedings. Remedy sought: 2. I submit that my appeal be granted and that the Notice of Administrative Penalty be cancelled. Affidavit or other evidence to be used in support of this application: 3. I depend on my vehichle to go to work as I live in Southwest Edmonton and work in Sherwood Park. Currently I commute with Uber and each trip costs between $32-$43. My job is at stake. Applicable Acts and regulations: 4.

Provincial Administrative Penalties Act SafeRoads Alberta Regulation [ 2 ] On November 22, 2021, Counsel for the Director of SafeRoads Alberta (Director), by letter, referred Ms. Uzzi’s Application for review as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 6. I have received and examined that referral since I am the judge assigned to review the AVAPs filed in Edmonton at the Court of Queen’s Bench. CPN7 is reviewable on-line at https://www.albertacourts.ca/qb/areas-of-law/civil/practice-notes. [ 3 ] I have reviewed Ms.

Uzzi’s Application, and conclude that this filing is an AVAP because the Application has elements that Courts identify as characteristics of hopeless and abusive proceedings. On that basis, I conclude Ms. Uzzi’s Application should be subject to a CPN7 show-cause document-based review under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 . That means I have decided that Ms. Uzzi must file a Written Submission setting out why her Originating Application should not be struck out because it is significantly deficient. II.

CPN7 [ 4 ] The Court implemented CPN7 to better manage litigation that, on its face, appears to be unmeritorious, has no chance of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious.

CPN7 is intended to provide litigants with a timely, proportionate, and cost-effective response: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2018 ABQB 874 ( Unrau #1 ). [ 5 ] If, on initial review by the Court, an AVAP appears to have no merit, have no prospect of success, or is otherwise abusive and vexatious, then the Court issues a first written decision that identifies the apparent issue or issues that may be a basis to strike out the AVAP under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court . [ 6 ] The party who filed the AVAP is then given an opportunity to, within 14 days, provide to the Court a Written Submission of up to a total of 10 pages in length that responds to, and demonstrates why, the AVAP is a legitimate action and should be permitted to continue.

The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of” the Justice who initiates the CPN7 process, and must also be served on the other parties to the litigation. [ 7 ] CPN7 is not to be used for “close calls”. The Court only intervenes 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 and 24 . [ 8 ] The Court only considers restricted forms of evidence when it conducts a CPN7 review because this process has a very narrow focus and operates to examine a single document and its content: Ubah v Canadian Natural Resources Limited , 2019 ABQB 347 at paras 24-48 ( Ubah #2 ). There are exceptions to that rule.

For example, the Court may examine other documents in the same proceeding that are related to the suspect filing ( Ubah #2 at para 35 ), or documents and records that are evidence that the AVAP is an attempt to litigate an issue that has already been decided or closed ( Ubah #2 at para 45 ). III. Analysis [ 9 ] Ms. Uzzi’s Application appears to exhibit several issues. A. No Court Jurisdiction [ 10 ] Ms. Uzzi seeks to “appeal” a “Notice of Administrative Penalty”. Notices of Administrative Penalty are issued pursuant to Traffic Safety Act , RSA 2000, c T-6 ,

Part IV. The Legislature has implemented a legislative scheme by which the SafeRoads Alberta tribunal conducts “reviews” of Notices of Administrative Penalty: Provincial Administrative Penalties Act , SA 2020, c P-30.8 ; SafeRoads Alberta Regulation , Alta Reg 224/2020 . [ 11 ] This Court therefore appears to have no jurisdiction to evaluate or “appeal” a Notice of Administrative Penalty. That is the sole jurisdiction of the SafeRoads Alberta tribunal.

Provincial Administrative Penalties Act , s 24(2) only permits this Court to conduct a judicial review of a decision by a SafeRoads Alberta Adjudicator. [ 12 ] I directed Ms. Uzzi to indicate how this Court has jurisdiction to directly evaluate the legality of a Notice of Administrative Penalty.

B. Inadequate Pleadings [13] An Application or Statement of Claim sets the issues to which the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of thecase it must meet: Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18 at para 87. Proper pleadings require more than simply bare assertions, or“bald allegations” of wrongdoing: GH v Alcock, 2013 ABCA 24 at para 58; Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015FCA 227 at paras 16-20.

Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate tothe responding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health andWelfare) at para 19. [14] Ms. Uzzi cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Director to “fill in theblanks”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 20.

A lack of specificity is not merely a technical defect, but goes tothe core of the claim: GH v Alcock at para 58, citing AL v Ontario (Minister of Community and Social Services) (2006), (ON CA), 274 DLR (4th) 431, 218 OAC 150 (Ont CA). Inadequate pleadings abuse the Court’s process because a Respondentcannot defend against unclear and non-specific claims and the Court cannot control the proceedings, identify the proposed argument, ormake findings on the relevant facts: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283 at para 629. [15] I will presume that what Ms.

Uzzi is attempting to do is conduct a judicial review of an unidentified decision of a SafeRoadsAlberta Adjudicator who denied a review request of an unidentified Notice of Administrative Penalty that was imposed on Ms. Uzzi. Ms.Uzzi has not provided any indication of what error was made by the Adjudicator. The Application does not appear to satisfy the commonlaw requirement that pleadings must provide the alleged “who, when, where, how and what” for the reviewing Court and Respondent. [16] I direct Ms. Uzzi to explain how her Application provides a basis for the Court and Director to make a meaningful response.

C. No Valid Grounds for Review [17] Ms. Uzzi’s states in paragraph 3 of the Application that her job depends on her driving to work. I note: 1) that economic need is not identified in SafeRoads Alberta Regulation, s 4 as a basis for a SafeRoads Adjudicator to cancel aNotice of Administrative Penalty; and 2) in Tarnow v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 602, Shelley J concluded that economic consequences are not arelevant factor when evaluating whether limits on motor vehicle use are a valid response to impaired driving. [18] I direct Ms.

Uzzi to explain why in law the expenses to access her workplace are a valid basis to challenge a Notice ofAdministrative Penalty. IV. Conclusion [19] Ms. Uzzi’s Application appears to be a suitable AVAP candidate for review pursuant to CPN7. The Court directs Ms. Uzzi toexplain: 1) how this Court has jurisdiction to appeal a Notice of Administrative Penalty; 2) how Ms. Uzzi’s Application provides a basis for the Court and Respondent to make a meaningful response; and 3) why economic factors are a valid basis on which to challenge a Notice of Administrative Penalty. [20] CPN7 now advances to its second step.

This step consists entirely of written submissions; there will be no Court appearancesor oral argument. The next steps are: 1) Ms. Uzzi has 14 days to prepare a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages, to be filed and served, as described inpara 3(

b) of CPN7. The Written Submission must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen”. 2) If this Court receives no Written Submission by that deadline, the Court will make its final decision on whether the Applicationshould be struck out in whole or in part under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(c)). 3) If Ms. Uzzi provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Director has seven days to provide a Written Reply of up to 10pages in length (see CPN7, para 3(d)).

The Written Reply must be clearly addressed “To the Attention of Associate Chief Justice K.G.Nielsen”. 4) After the Court receives a Written Submission and the Director’s Written Reply, if any, the Court will make its final decision onwhether the Application in Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2103 15497 should be struck out in whole or in part, under r3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(e)). [21] Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2103 15497 is stayed until further notice. The Court will prepare and serve anInterim Order staying this action (see CPN7, para 7). Ms.

Uzzi’s approval of the Interim Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) ofthe Alberta Rules of Court.

Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 24 th day of November, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Jas Sadhra Emery Jamieson LLP for the Respondent