Case information

Civil procedure — Actions — Motion to strike — Abuse of process — No reasonable cause of action — Parties disputing terms of agreement of purchase and sale, with application judge finding agreement binding and enforceable — Applicant subsequently commencing action in contract, tort and breach of duty — Statement of claim struck for failing to disclose reasonable cause of action — Appeal dismissed on ground that action constituted abuse of process — Where reasonable jurists disagree as to the constituent elements of a cause of action, should a claim dismissed for “no reasonable cause of action” carry the further risk of a finding that the entire proceeding constitutes an “abuse of process”? — If a court’s decision to dismiss or not dismiss a proceeding as an abuse of process is discretionary, what standard of review applies to an appellate court’s consideration of that decision? — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 21.01(1)(b), 21.01(3)(d).

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.

The applicant, Pine Glen Thorold Inc. (“Pine Glen”), a homebuilding company, entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with the respondent, Rolling Meadows Land Development Corporation (“Rolling Meadows”), for the purchase of development lands. The agreement was subsequently amended. After a dispute arose regarding the amended agreement, litigation ensued and it was ultimately found to be binding and enforceable, a decision upheld on appeal. Following closing of the transaction, Pine Glen commenced a subsequent action against Rolling Meadows and its principal, Glen Gordon, also a respondent, asserting numerous causes of action in contract, tort and breach of duty. The motion judge struck the claim in its entirety for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action and denied leave to amend the claim. The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal on the basis that the action constituted an abuse of process because it sought to relitigate issues that were, or could have been, raised in the previous proceedings and raised issues arising from the conduct of that litigation.