Moyer v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 975

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Moyer v Alberta (Director of SafeRoads), 2021 ABQB 975 Date: 20211208 Docket: 2104 00632 Registry: Grande Prairie Between: Robert Moyer Applicant - and - Safe Roads Alberta Respondent _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of Associate Chief Justice K.G. Nielsen _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] On November 12, 2021, Robert Moyer (Mr. Moyer) filed an Originating Application naming “Safe Roads Alberta” as the Respondent (Application). The entire body of the Application reads: Basis for this Claim:

1. Unfair Bias/ disregard for evidence with repect to review process, Alberta Safe Roads. 2. We need to uphold and preserve our judiciary, that some new organizations wish to destroy. Remedy sought 3. Complete review of this case, and others in system now for lack of justice. 4. Reinstatement of my professional Drivers’ licence so I can feed my children (7) my wif, and myself. Affidavit or other evidence to be used in support of this application: 5.

Affidavit Applicable Acts and regulations: 6. 7. (Sic, emphasis in original) [ 2 ] On December 7, 2021, Counsel for the Director of SafeRoads Alberta (Director), by letter, referred Mr. Moyer’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 the Grande Prairie Judicial Centre of 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 Mr. Moyer’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 Mr. Moyer’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 Mr.

Moyer must file a Written Submission setting out why his 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 ] Mr. Moyer’s Application appears to exhibit several issues. A. Inadequate Pleadings [ 10 ] An Application or Statement of Claim sets the issues to which the opposing party must respond, and alerts that party of the case 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) , 2015 FCA 227 at paras 16-20 . Pleadings must provide a basis for the Court and other litigants to make a meaningful response, and indicate to the responding parties the “... who, when, where, how and what gave rise to its liability.”: Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare) at para 19 . [ 11 ] Mr. Moyer cannot file inadequate pleadings and then either supplement those claims, or expect the Director to “fill in the

blanks”: 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 (Unrau #2). [12] I presume that what Mr. Moyer is attempting to do is initiate a judicial review of an unidentified decision of the SafeRoadsAlberta tribunal that suspended Mr. Moyer’s drivers’ licence, pursuant to section 24(2) of the Provincial Administrative Penalties Act,SA 2020, c P-30.8. If correct, then Mr.

Moyer appears to allege that the SafeRoads Alberta Adjudicator was biased against Mr. Moyer.Any allegation of decision-maker bias must overcome the “... presumption that tribunal members will act impartially in the absence ofevidence to the contrary”: Mountain Creeks Ranch Inc v Yellowhead (County) Subdivision and Development Appeal Board, 2006ABCA 126 at para 8. However, what Mr. Moyer has made is a “bald allegation”, that provides none of the “who, when, where, how andwhat” that would be the basis for his allegation. Mr. Moyer provides no information to counter that presumption. [13] Mr.

Moyer also alleges “... disregard for evidence ...”. What was that evidence? How does Mr. Moyer know that evidencewas disregarded? How is that evidence relevant, and/or determinative of the decision that Mr. Moyer seeks to challenge? This, too,appears to be a bald allegation. [14] Paragraph 2 of Application also indicates some kind of attack on “our judiciary”. Is that this Court? Something else? What arethe “new organizations” indicated by Mr. Moyer? How are the “new organizations” capable of destroying “our judiciary”? [15] I direct Mr.

Moyer to explain how his Application provides a basis for the Court and Director to make a meaningful response. B. No Valid Grounds for Review [16] Mr. Moyer states at paragraph 4 of the Application that he needs reinstatement of his “professional Drivers’ licence” toprovide food for himself and his family. I presume that Mr. Moyer is arguing that being prohibited from operating a motor vehicle iscausing him and his family harm. I note: 1) that economic need is not identified in

section 4 of the SafeRoads Alberta Regulation, Alta Reg 224/2020 as a basis for aSafeRoads Adjudicator to cancel a Notice 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. [17] I direct Mr. Moyer to explain why in law economic need is a valid basis to challenge a Notice of Administrative Penalty. C. Busybody Litigation [18] Mr.

Moyer states at paragraph 3 of the Application that he seeks “... [c]omplete review ...” of his matter, and “... others insystem ...”. What the “... others in system ...” means is not explicit, but it seems Mr. Moyer is seeking to have this Court evaluate somekinds of matters outside the judicial review of his licence suspension. [19] Litigation where a person purports to involve himself or herself in the rights of uninvolved third parties is a form of abusivelitigation often referred to as “busybody litigation”: Unrau #2 at para 664.

Busybody litigation is an abuse of court processes thatwarrants an action being struck out on that basis. [20] I direct Mr. Moyer to explain why his apparent attempts to have this Court review matters other than those in which he isinvolved is not busybody litigation and an abuse of the Court. IV. Conclusion [21] Mr. Moyer’s Application appears to be a suitable AVAP candidate for review pursuant to CPN7. The Court directs Mr.Moyer to explain: 1) how Mr.

Moyer’s Application provides a basis for the Court and Respondent to make a meaningful response; 2) why economic factors are a valid basis on which to challenge a Notice of Administrative Penalty; and 3) why the Application is not abusive busybody litigation? [22] 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) Mr. Moyer has 14 days to prepare a Written Submission of no more than a total of 10 pages, to be filed and served, as describedin para 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 Mr. Moyer provides and serves a Written Submission, then the Director has seven days to provide a Written Reply of up to 10

pages 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 on whether Action No. 2104 00632 should be struck out in whole or in part, under r 3.68 of the Alberta Rules of Court (see CPN7, para 3(e)). [ 23 ] Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Action No. 2104 00632 is stayed until further notice. The scheduled January 21, 2022 court appearance is cancelled.

The Court will prepare and serve an Interim Order staying this Action (see CPN7, para 7). Mr. Moyer’s approval of the Interim Order is not required, pursuant to r 9.4(2)(

c) of the Alberta Rules of Court . Dated at the City of Grande Prairie, Alberta this 8 th day of December, 2021. K.G. Nielsen A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Adam Ollenberger Legal Services Division Alberta Justice and Solicitor General for the Respondent