“When the matter eventually proceeded before Baltman J. of the Superior Court of Justice on July 23, 2008, the appellant’s motion was dismissed in its entirety, in part on the basis that it was an abuse of process. The motion judge stated:
The husband currently has 4 (four) outstanding appeals, all arising out of the same matters dealt with by Coats, J. He has already brought a motion to vary Coats J.’s judgment which was dismissed by Murray J., on January 10, 2008 (in part because there was no evidence of a change in circumstances) which is now under appeal. The husband brought a motion before the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 5, 2008 to stay the support payments pending appeal of Coats J.’s judgment, which was dismissed.
While in theory the husband has the right to move to vary upon a material change, we cannot on any whim reinstigate proceedings that are essentially identical to ones he has recently lost and has under appeal. The husband is essentially trying to relitigate the motion already dismissed by Murray J., relying upon what is in my view the identical grounds and essentially the same evidence or at least evidence that could or should have been raised previously. This violates what Arbour J., calls the “principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice”: Toronto v. CUPE Local 79, 2003 SCC 63 (CanLII), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, at paras. 35-55.
We agree with this conclusion and with the motion judge’s reasoning in support of it.”