Abuse of Process. A Grievant shall not submit a frivolous Grievance or a complaint concerning a matter that has already been resolved through the grievance process or other review or appeal process. Further, a Grievant shall not file a Grievance containing allegations that Xxxxxxxx knows to be false. Any such abuse of the Grievance Process shall be considered misconduct to be handled in accordance with District Policy GCQF or Policy GDQD.
Abuse of Process. 17. The Defendant contends that these proceedings amount to an abuse of process, as the Claimants have vigorously pursued the costs action and have never indicated in those proceedings that the action was compromised. The Defendant suggests that to allow the Claimants to side step those proceedings by taking another “bite of the cherry” would amount to abuse of process. The nature of this action, however, is founded in contract. This is a separate cause of action against the Defendant, claiming that a contract was made between the parties and that contract has been breached. The commencement of fresh proceedings to enforce a contract to compromise an action is permissible, and it does not run afoul of any rule of the public policy. The compromise is entirely contractual and the usual remedies for breach of contract will lie. See Law of Compromise X Xxxxxxx para 11-02. The Court therefore does not agree that these proceedings constitute an abuse of the process. It is a legitimate cause of action emerging from the court action. Perhaps, different choices could be made by a case managing judge to stay those proceedings pending the hearing of this claim, but that does of itself constitute an abuse of the process and does not prevent the Claimants from pursuing their claim to remuneration in this forum.
Abuse of Process. In the amended defence2, Proman asserted that CLF’s current position is inconsistent with that of CV2009-00651 Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago and Colonial Life Insurance Company Ltd v CLF Financial Limited and therefore constitutes an abuse of process and it should be estopped from making any allegations. The claimants’ attorneys, in their submissions3, stated that the previous proceedings did not include any of the defendants in the current claim and further, the matter was wholly discontinued by notice of withdrawal dated 27 October 2009. Therefore, the claimants were not estopped from maintaining the current claim. The defendant, however, did not address this abuse of process and estoppel issue in its filed submissions and therefore the court did not feel compelled to consider it.
Abuse of Process. Both HTL and Xx Xxxxxxx submitted that the Application was an abuse of the court’s process in that LOS ought to have filed Ancillary Proceedings in the Original Action. Clear learning in BURNUP per Xxxxxxx X (as he then was) is instructive as to whether this present action is an abuse of process. I posed that issue at the CMC and instead, I was met with this application to join the trials. [22] I say this to highlight that LOS was on notice of the court’s concern about the Present Action and the fact that the Defence at paragraph 1 spoke as it did. There can therefore be no claim of surprise or that LOS was not given an opportunity to address the issue of abuse of process or striking out on grounds of disclosing no cause of action. [23] The Application is an abuse of process in that an ancillary claim should have been brought by LOS in the Original Action. I cannot depart from Xxxxxxx X’s dicta on this issue. [24] I note that there is no application for summary judgment. [25] WHETHER ENTIRE CLAIM SHOULD BE STRUCK OUT HTL in its Defence at paragraph 1 raises quite squarely whether the Statement of Claim filed against them discloses no cause of action and should be struck out. In examining the pleadings it is clear that the basis of the indemnity and/or contribution as claimed is not pleaded. There is no averment that the indemnity arose out of a statute, a contract among any of the parties to this action, or any party at all. [26] The primary requirement in negligence cases, is the existence of a duty of care. Forseeability is one of the tests. Where is that pleaded? Another test to be satisfied is the proximity of the relationship. Where is that pleaded? The inescapable conclusion is that there is no averment that the contribution arose out of a duty of care, whether statutory or otherwise owed by HTL to anyone. I am of the view that even if I permit the parties to submit on this issue, they will not avert the inevitable conclusion. [27] What then should I do? Under the court’s Case Management powers Part 26, the court can strike out a Statement of Case or any part of it on its own motion. There is no need for an application by parties. The object is “to stop the proceedings and to prevent a further waste of resources”.11 The only obvious course is to dismiss the second matter as disclosing no cause of action against HTL. I do not think that LOS is well placed to frown on this course, since the omissions in their pleadings are fatal to its cause. [28] In t...
Abuse of Process. GENERAL LEGAL PRINCIPLES 14 Our courts will intervene to prevent abuse of process based on the common law power to do so and to protect rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Traditionally, the common law power was directed towards abuse that undermined the integrity of the judicial system, whereas the abuse of process power under the Charter tended to address abuse that affected individual rights. In X. x. X'Xxxxxx, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411, 103 C.C.C. (3d) 1, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized and endorsed both streams of the abuse of process power and noted that the evolution of the power has resulted in the merger of the two. L'Xxxxxxx-Xxxx J. held, at para. 71: The principles of fundamental justice both reflect and accommodate the nature of the common law doctrine of abuse of process. Although I am willing to concede that the focus of the common law doctrine of abuse of process has traditionally been more on the protection of the integrity of the judicial system whereas the focus of the Charter has traditionally been more on the protection of rights, I believe that there is no utility in maintaining two distinct analytic regimes. We should not invite schizophrenia into the law. 15 In X'Xxxxxx, the Supreme Court confirmed the formulation of the test for abuse of process as established in X. x. Xxxxxx, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128, 21 C.C.C. (3d) 7, 20 D.L.R. (4th) 651, [1985] 2
