“The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the doctrine of abuse of process in Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63 paras. 35, 37-38, 42 (“CUPE”) and stated that judges have an inherent and residual discretion to prevent an abuse of the court’s process. Pursuant to the doctrine of abuse of process, the court has the discretion to prevent relitigation for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the court’s process and preventing the violation of the principles of judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice. In all of its applications, the primary focus of the doctrine of abuse of process is the integrity of the adjudicative functions of courts. See CUPE at paras. 35, 37-38, 42, 43.
The Supreme Court of Canada stated the following with respect to abuse of process by relitigation in CUPE at para. 52:
[…] It is therefore apparent that from the system’s point of view, relitigation carries serious detrimental effects and should be avoided unless the circumstances dictate that relitigation is in fact necessary to enhance the credibility and the effectiveness of the adjudicative process as a whole. There may be instances where relitigation will enhance, rather than impeach, the integrity of the judicial system, for example: (1) when the first proceeding is tainted by fraud or dishonesty; (2) when fresh, new evidence, previously unavailable, conclusively impeaches the original results; or (3) when fairness dictates that the original result should not be binding in the new context. […]
Similar concerns arise with respect to proceedings that have been qualified as “vexatious”. The Court of Appeal has identified the following characteristics of vexatious proceedings (see Currie at para. 11):
-
-
-
-
- the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitute a vexatious proceeding;
- where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain relief, the action is vexatious;
- vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights;
- it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the litigant in earlier proceedings;
- in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good cause of action;
- the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs of unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether proceedings are vexatious;
- the respondent’s conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings.”
-
-
-
Abrahams v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 514 (CanLII) at 37-39