|
Abuse of Process - Purpose. Fletcher v. Ontario
In Fletcher v. Ontario (Ont CA, 2024) the Court of Appeal considered (and dismissed) a native appeal concerning the instatement of an indigenous reserve after the Crown had disregarded a Treaty duty to establish one since 1906. The essential issue of the case was the size of a 'new' reserve, as the Treaty calculated that by the band population - but was that the 1906 population or the modern population (ie. the 'crystallization date')? The trial court found it to be the 1906 population.
Here the court characterizes the purpose of the 'abuse of process' doctrine:[148] The primary focus of the doctrine of abuse of process places more emphasis upon the integrity of the adjudicative functions of courts than the interest of parties: Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E. Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77, at para. 43. The doctrine functions to prevent re-litigation in circumstances that violate judicial economy, consistency, finality, and the integrity of the administration of justice: 402 Mulock Investments Inc. v. Wheelhouse Coatings Inc., 2022 ONCA 718, at para. 19. It is a discretionary power deployed to protect the integrity and coherence of the court’s process that should only be invoked in the clearest of cases: Currie v. Halton Regional Police Service Board (2003), 2003 CanLII 7815 (ON CA), 233 D.L.R. (4th) 657 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 18; Dosen v. Meloche Monnex Financial Services Inc. (Security National Insurance Company), 2021 ONCA 141, 457 D.L.R. (4th) 530, at para. 27.
|
