{"id":162,"date":"2025-03-20T15:09:05","date_gmt":"2025-03-20T15:09:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/?p=162"},"modified":"2025-04-03T19:11:52","modified_gmt":"2025-04-03T19:11:52","slug":"when-does-double-mean-trouble","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/index.php\/2025\/03\/20\/when-does-double-mean-trouble\/","title":{"rendered":"Similarity doesn&#8217;t mean abuse of process"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>Saskatchewan v. M\u00e9tis Nation<\/em>, <a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.canlii.org\/en\/ca\/scc\/doc\/2025\/2025scc4\/2025scc4.html\">2025 SCC 4<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">How many related lawsuits can you start without abusing the court\u2019s process? It depends on the level of similarity. According to the SCC, multiple doesn\u2019t necessarily mean bad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>A bit of context: <\/strong>The Saskatchewan branch of the M\u00e9tis Nation has been fighting with the province about land for over 20 years. They sued in 1994, claiming Aboriginal title and commercial harvesting rights. But the Saskatchewan Court of King\u2019s Bench stayed the lawsuit in 2005 because the M\u00e9tis Nation failed to disclose documents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Saskatchewan figured that was the end of it. The government even adopted a formal (non) consultation policy \u2014 saying it didn\u2019t recognize any Indigenous claims in Saskatchewan and wouldn\u2019t consult with Indigenous groups about land use issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The M\u00e9tis Nation \u2014 not exactly fond of the province&#8217;s approach \u2014 started two related legal proceedings several years later.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The first claims the government\u2019s no-consultation policy is unconstitutional because the M\u00e9tis Nation\u2019s land claims require consultation<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The second aims to set aside uranium exploration permits that the province granted without consultation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>On appeal: <\/strong>Saskatchewan argued the newer proceedings are an abuse of process because they&#8217;re based on the same land claim as the original lawsuit. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>The Court\u2019s decision: <\/strong>With Justice Rowe writing for the majority, the Court said related proceedings are <em>sometimes \u2014 <\/em>but not always \u2014 an abuse of process. Similarity alone isn&#8217;t enough. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-style-default td_quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">[T]he abuse of process analysis does not end when multiple or similar proceedings exist. [T]he analysis needs to focus on whether allowing the litigation to proceed would violate such principles as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice&#8230;. Where, for example, having duplicative proceedings would waste the resources of the parties, courts and witnesses, or risk inconsistent results and therefore undermine the credibility of the judicial process, this can amount to an abuse of process.<\/p>\n<cite><a href=\"https:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/k9rn4#par40\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Para 40<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It&#8217;s abusive to sue the exact same defendant and ask for the exact same remedy. But that wasn&#8217;t the case here.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The gist of the original lawsuit was: &#8220;The government of Saskatchewan needs to recognize our land and harvesting rights&#8221;.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The newer proceedings are more like: &#8220;I know we haven&#8217;t proven our claim yet, but you at least need to consult with us before mining land we say is ours.&#8221;<br><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">And that difference was enough to get the Metis Nation&#8217;s newer proceedings past the abuse of process argument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Saskatchewan also argued the two newer proceedings duplicate <em>each other <\/em>\u2014 since they both allege Saskatchewan had a duty to consult. But again the Court saw a difference. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In one, the  Metis Nation wants to strike down the government&#8217;s non-consultation policy. <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In the other, they want to set aside two specific permits. <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">There&#8217;s overlap, but not enough to warrant stopping either claim in its tracks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><br>Striking pleadings for abuse of process is a drastic remedy&#8230; The option of case management to avoid a potential inconsistency of decisions makes clear that this is not a case where such a \u201cdrastic remedy\u201d is to be contemplated.<br><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n<cite><a href=\"https:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/k9rn4#par60\">Para 60<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Uniquely positioned: <\/strong>The Court&#8217;s reasons don&#8217;t give the impression this case was a tough call. But if it <em>had <\/em>been more of a grey area, the Indigenous context may have tipped the scales. Even though Indigenous litigants don\u2019t get a free pass \u2014 Justice Rowe made it clear that the Indigenous context requires a unique (and more flexible) approach to the test for abuse of process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">[T]he unique context of litigation to vindicate Aboriginal rights must always be borne in mind, both as to whether an abuse of process exists and, if so, [in choosing an appropriate response]. Court procedures should facilitate, not impede, the just resolution of Aboriginal claims.<\/p>\n<cite><a href=\"https:\/\/canlii.ca\/t\/k9rn4#par62\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Para 62<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Big picture: <\/strong>Even though the claim survived the abuse of process argument &#8212; that doesn&#8217;t mean the prior litigation conduct won&#8217;t be relevant. A different court still needs to decide whether Saskatchewan owed the Metis any consultation. And that court may well decide that the Metis Nation&#8217;s refusal to disclose documents signalled to the province that no consultation was required. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-style-default td_quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">[The scope of the duty to consult] is not before this Court. <\/p>\n<cite>test<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>How many related lawsuits can you start without abusing the court\u2019s process? It depends on the level of similarity. According to the SCC, multiple doesn\u2019t necessarily mean bad.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":163,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,1],"tags":[7],"class_list":["post-162","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-case-update","category-uncategorized","tag-scc"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=162"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":314,"href":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162\/revisions\/314"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/163"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.readhearsay.ca\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}