|
Abuse of Process - Contrasted with Procedural Fairness. Abu-Ain v. Security National Insurance Company et al
In Abu-Ain v. Security National Insurance Company et al (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a LAT SABS joint appeal-JR, this brought against a "LAT decision .... which determined that Mr. Abu-Ain was not an “insured person” under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010", where the applicant-appellant was an uninsured passenger in a car.
Here the court considers 'abuse of process' doctrine as an aspect of 'procedural fairness':The application of the doctrine of abuse of process
[35] The Supreme Court of Canada has explained that “[i]n administrative proceedings, abuse of process is a question of procedural fairness”: Abrametz, at para. 38. While the Court in Abrametz was dealing specifically with delay as an abuse of process, it made general comments about the doctrine in the administrative law context.
[36] The Court noted that abuse of process is a broad and flexible concept, and at para. 35 cited with approval the following dissenting reasons of Goudge J.A. in the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles (2000), 2000 CanLII 8514 (ON CA), 51 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.), rev’d 2002 SCC 63, 2022 SCC 63, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307:[The doctrine of abuse of process] engages the inherent power of the court to prevent the misuse of its procedure, in a way that would be manifestly unfair to a party to the litigation before it or would in some other way bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is a flexible doctrine unencumbered by the specific requirements of concepts such as issue estoppel. (internal citations omitted) [37] The Court went on to note at paragraph 36 that the “proper administration of justice and ensuring fairness are central to the doctrine”. The doctrine “aims to prevent unfairness by precluding ‘abuse of the decision-making process’” (internal citations omitted).
|
