WOODWORTH v ALBERTA (DIRECTOR OF SAFEROADS), 2021 ABQB 695
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
This was an Application to evaluate whether an Amended Originating Application should be approved for filing or rejected as abuse of process, pursuant to Rule 3.68. In a previous Application, Rook ACJ applied the “SafeRoads Alberta Accelerated Review Procedure” (“SAARP”) to determine that the Originating Application submitted by the Applicant was a prima facie abuse of process and ordered that the Applicant either 1) discontinue the Originating Application; 2) submit a candidate Amended Originating Application; or 3) provide an up to ten-page written submission to explain why the Originating Application constituted a valid Action. The Applicant chose to submit a candidate Amended Originating Application.
After reviewing the Amended Originating Application, the Court concluded that the amended pleading was largely adequate and ordered that the Amended Originating Application be submitted for filing, subject to specific revisions. In addition, the Court confirmed that the SAARP process represents a method for conducting a review to deal with significant deficiencies, pursuant to Rule 3.68 and that, accordingly all pleaded facts must be accepted by the Court as accurate and true for purposes of the Application, except where alleged facts are bald allegations, or in exceptional cases where the alleged facts are on their face absurd.View CanLII Details