Haug v Warden of Dorchester Institution, 2015 SKCA 135

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Citation: Haug v Warden of Dorchester Institution, 2015SKCA 135Docket: CACV2726 Date: 2015-12-08Daryle William Haug ApplicantandWarden of Dorchester Institution RespondentsandLarry Haug Executor/Administrator for Estates of Edith and Oswald Haug Estate Representative Fiat [1] Daryle William Haug, currently an inmate at Dorchester Institution in New Brunswick, applies for various forms of relieffrom the Warden of Dorchester Institution. The application is brought in the context of an extant civil appeal in this Court involving Mr.Haug and the executor of his mother’s estate.

The Warden was not and is not a party to the action that is subject to the appeal and has nointerest in the proceedings. Mr. Haug seeks Charter relief from this Court, pursuant to alleged violations of his ss. 7 and 15 Charterrights. He seeks orders under s. 24(1) of the Charter directing the Warden to provide him with the following:

a) Access to his personal computer, currently held in storage at Dorchester Institution, allowing him to have such in his cell;

b) Direct access to CanLII case law research site, through an independent computer with limited access to specific sites such as CanLIIand other related legal research sites for a minimum of 6 hours per week and the capacity to download such information to CD-ROM;

c) Direct access to a photocopier for copying of legal material within 48 hours of request;

d) The FTR reader program available on the internet for listening to the Audio CD-ROM provided by the Courts be placed on disc andmade available to the Applicant; and;

e) Access to Interlibrary loans through other local libraries and specifically the National Library of Canada for access to legal readingmaterials. 6. In the first alternative to this request, the Applicant requests damages against the Attorney General of Canada as follows:

a) The sum of $49,259.16 in dispute regarding sum paid by Estate of Edith Haug from the funds the Applicant was to receive, for costsincurred by the Estate of Oswald Haug.

b) The sum of $10,978.90 in dispute regarding the sum paid by the Estate of Edith Haug from the funds the Applicant was to receive, forcosts of storage locker fees.

c) The sum of $21,150.07 in dispute regarding the dissipation of funds into joint accounts with beneficiaries of Edith Haug’s Estate, andthe failure of the Executor to include such into the equal distribution of the Estate as the beneficiaries holding such joint accounts failedto rebut the survival ship [sic] of joint accounts under “resulting trust” rules.

d) The sum of $13,433.80 in dispute over funds received for purchase of Estate Columbarium and actual purchase price in 2009. For a total sum of $94,830.93 7. In the second alternative, the Applicant requests that his indeterminate sentence be quashed or annulled and that he be immediatelyreleased to pursue the Estate proceedings. [Respondent brief] [2] Mr. Haug, a designated dangerous offender, is serving an indeterminate sentence. Mr. Haug, by his own admission, has beenincarcerated in a number of federal penitentiaries across Canada.

He has been a prolific litigator in the courts of many provinces and theFederal Court of Canada. He currently admits to having ten ongoing files before various courts across Canada and contemplates anotherfour actions being launched in the very near future. Mr. Haug acknowledges that he can pursue and has pursued this type of reliefrelating to his computer, etc., via the Inmate Grievance Procedure. He simply states that it takes too long for this process to wind its waythrough the various officials and ultimately the Federal Court. [3] Mr. Haug is careful to couch this application in the form of Charter relief.

Previous attempts at similar relief were made inthe nature of mandamus and were found by appellate courts in Alberta and New Brunswick to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of theFederal Court (see R v Haug, 2011 ABCA 153, 502 AR 392 and Haug v Warden of Dorchester Institution, (NBCA)). [4] It is important to remember that Mr. Haug has not launched an action against the Warden. It therefore remains unclear as toexactly what specific legislation, regulation, policy directive, etc. that Mr. Haug is alleging to not be Charter compliant.

Without anaction specifying the appropriate offending legislation, it makes it virtually impossible for the Warden to defend or to justify. It certainlymakes it impossible for this Court to adjudicate the dispute, even if jurisdiction was assumed. In my view, this is fatal to Mr. Haug’sapplication and for this reason I would dismiss his application. [5] A brief word is in order on this Court assuming original jurisdiction. This Court can assume original jurisdiction to hear amatter pursuant to s. 11 of The Court of Appeal Act, 2000, SS 2000, c C-42.1. The Honourable Stuart J.

Cameron in Civil Appeals inSaskatchewan: The Court of Appeal Act & Rules Annotated (Regina: Law Society of Saskatchewan Library, 2015) noted in hiscommentary on s. 11 at p. 68:

Section 11 confers this same original supervisory jurisdiction upon the Court of Appeal. Only in exceptional circumstances, however, does the court exercise this jurisdiction: Geller v Saskatchewan (1985), (SK CA), 48 Sask R 239 (CA): [4] … This being a court whose primary jurisdiction is appellate, we think that only in special cases, of which this is not one, or inextraordinary circumstances should this court entertain, in the first instance, an application inviting the exercise of its concurrent originaljurisdiction.

Such applications, generally speaking, are to be made to the Court of Queen’s Bench. [6] In my view, there is nothing extraordinary or exceptional relating to Mr. Haug’s application that comes close to convincingme that this Court’s original jurisdiction should be utilized to grant the relief requested. [7] For these reasons, the application is dismissed. The Warden requests costs. Mr. Haug is ordered to pay costs to the Wardenfor the unsuccessful motion, fixed at $500.00.

No costs are awarded to the estate. “Herauf J.A.” Herauf J.A.Counsel: Daryle Haug on his own behalf Don Klaassen for the Department of Justice Patrick H. Loran for the Estate of Edith Haug