McClintock v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 973

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: McClintock v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 973 Date: 20211208 Docket: 2103 11666 Registry: Edmonton Between: Docket 2103 11666 Darren McClintock Applicant - and - The Director of SafeRoads Alberta Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On July 16, 2021, this Court received an Originating Application (Application) from Darren McClintock (Mr.

McClintock) that sought judicial review of a decision of SafeRoads Alberta reported as McClintock (Re) , 2021 ABSRA 566 . Counsel for the Director of SafeRoads Alberta (Director) on November 5, 2021 by letter referred the Application for review as an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding (AVAP) pursuant to Civil Practice Note No. 7 (CPN7), paragraph 6.

I 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. [ 2 ] In a decision reported as McClintock v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads) , 2021 ABQB 910 , I concluded that the Application did not appear to provide adequate pleadings and requested Mr. McClintock provide an up to ten-page Written Submission to respond to that prima facie defect. On December 7, 2021, Counsel for Mr. McClintock wrote me to indicate that his client intended to discontinue the Application.

[ 3 ] When an action is terminated via the CPN7 process, the usual practice of this Court is to award costs in favour of the litigant who referred the matter to the Court: e.g. Ahad v Calgary Housing Company , 2020 ABQB 450 at para 9 ; Phillips v Kenney , 2020 ABQB 452 at para 9 ; Skrypichayko v Law Society of Alberta , 2020 ABQB 604 at para 43 ; Feeney v Alberta , 2020 ABQB 633 at para 6 . However, this Court also recognizes that good faith, positive litigation conduct should be acknowledged and encouraged: Unrau v National Dental Examining Board , 2019 ABQB 283 at paras 742-746 . Furthermore, Counsel for Mr.

McClintock indicated the Director would accept a discontinuance on a without costs basis. [ 4 ] Accordingly, notwithstanding that costs normally are awarded against an Applicant unilaterally filing a discontinuance (r 4.36(4) of the Alberta Rules of Court , AR 124/2010 ), I adopt the approach taken in Weidenfeld v Alberta , 2020 ABQB 472 at para 6 (Rooke ACJ) and in Leslie v Edmonton Institution , 2020 ABQB 512 at para 4 (Henderson J), and do not make any cost order against Mr. McClintock in relation to his Application. [ 5 ] Counsel for Mr.

McClintock will prepare and serve the Pleadings discontinuing the Application and giving effect to this Memorandum of Decision. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 8 th day of December, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Geoff R. Green for the Applicant Rachelle Roberts Legal Services Division Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for the Respondent