Coutu Gold Mines Company Limited v. Ontario
The appeal was dismissed because the 2013 claim sought the same relief and raised the same issues as the appellant's 2008 and 2010 actions which were previously dismissed, so res judicata and abuse of process barred the re-litigation; further, the Coutu Gold Mines Limited Act, 2012 expressly preserved the Crown's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2014 ONCA 684
- Parties
- Appellant: Coutu Gold Mines Company Limited; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 3 October 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge's Dismissal Order
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Limitation Periods, Forfeiture of Mining Rights, Statutory Interpretation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Coutu Gold Mines Company Limited
Appellant
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Motion Judge's Dismissal Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2013 action is barred by res judicata because it raises the same issues and seeks the same relief as prior 2008 and 2010 actions
- 2 Whether the doctrine of abuse of process bars the 2013 action
- 3 Whether limitation periods preclude the claim
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the 2013 claim sought the same relief and raised the same issues as the appellant's 2008 and 2010 actions which were previously dismissed, so res judicata and abuse of process barred the re-litigation; further, the Coutu Gold Mines Limited Act, 2012 expressly preserved the Crown's status regarding forfeited mining rights and did not revive or affect rights forfeited after dissolution; no error in the motion judge's dismissal and no basis to permit a new legal theory to avoid res judicata.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed and motion judge's dismissal affirmed
- Appellant to pay respondent $1,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Coutu Gold Mines Company Limited v. Ontario Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2014-10-03 Neutral citation 2014 ONCA 684 Docket numbers C58385 Judges Doherty, David H.; Pepall, Sarah E.; Tulloch, Michael H. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Coutu Gold Mines Company Limited v. Ontario, 2014 ONCA 684 DATE: 20141003 DOCKET: C58385 Doherty, Pepall and Tulloch JJ.A. BETWEEN Coutu Gold Mines Company Limited Appellant and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario Respondent Peter W. Coutu, in person Tom Schreiter, for the respondent Heard and released orally: September 25, 2014 On appeal from the order of Justice I.S. McMillan of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 14, 2013. ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant’s 2013 action seeks the same relief for the same set of underlying factual complaints as found in the appellant’s 2008 and 2010 actions. The appellant seeks the return of mining claims and mining rights forfeited to the Crown in 1974. [2] The motion judge dismissed the appellant’s action on the grounds of res judicata, abuse of process, time limitations, and on the language of the Coutu Gold Mines Limited Act, 2012, c. P. R. 1. We see no error in his decision to dismiss the action. No appeal was ever taken from the two court orders dismissing the appellant’s actions claiming the same relief and raising the same issues as claimed in the 2013 action. [3] Res judicata and abuse of process were properly relied upon by the motion judge. Furthermore, it is not open to the appellant to rely on a new legal theory or different documentary and statutory interpretation to avoid the application of res judicata. See Las Vegas Strip Ltd. v. Toronto (City) [1996] O.J. 3210. [4] Moreover, the enactment of the Coutu Gold Mines Limited Act has no impact on the outcome because it expressly provided that any mining rights and mining licences of occupation forfeited to the Crown after the date of dissolution of the company were unaffected. [5] The appeal is dismissed. As agreed by the parties, the appellant will pay the respondent $1,000 in costs inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes. “Doherty J.A.” “S.E. Pepall J.A.” “M. Tulloch J.A.”