Case information

Civil procedure – Abuse of process – Action in damages – Whether fact that first instance judge was under false impression that illegally seized documents had been destroyed by applicants constitutes “question of principle” under art. 30 para. 3 C.C.P. – Whether Court of Appeal’s conflict of interest position constitutes “question of principle” under art. 30 para. 3 C.C.P. – Whether fact that Court of Appeal dismissed application for leave to appeal because applicants’ behaviour was abusive, and not because action was abusive, is contrary to arts. 51 et seq. C.C.P. – Code of Civil Procedure, CQLR, c. C 25.01.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In 2015, the Court of Québec, in a penal case involving the parties, held that constitutional rights had been violated. In 2016, the applicants brought a first originating application against the respondents in the civil chamber of the Superior Court, claiming $45,000,000 in damages. In September 2020, following the expiration of the avenues of appeal affirming their acquittals, the applicants applied again to the Court of Québec to have all of the illegally seized property returned to them under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

On November 2, 2020, the applicants discontinued their judicial application for damages in the Superior Court. On June 1, 2021, the Court of Québec granted the motion in part and ordered the return of some of the seized property. The other things remained under seizure because the proceedings that had been instituted were still under way. Between June 2021 and February 2023, the respondents complied with the judgment rendered. The applicants remained silent. On August 16, 2023, the applicants instituted a second civil action against the same defendants on the same grounds, claiming $40,000,000. The respondents sought the dismissal of the action, alleging abuse of process.

The first instance judge granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss. By discontinuing their court action and then instituting a similar one nearly three years later, the applicants were breaching the judicial contract they had entered into, which constituted abuse. The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal on the ground that the proposed appeal raised no issue of general interest or issue of law that had given rise to conflicting judicial decisions.