Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al., 2002 SCC 63

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Major, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court of Canada
Case DateOctober 08, 2002
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations2002 SCC 63;(2002), 296 N.R. 257 (SCC)

Canam Ent. Inc. v. Coles (2002), 296 N.R. 257 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. OC.061

Alan H. Coles v. Canam Enterprises Inc. et al.

(28264; 2002 SCC 63)

Indexed As: Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Major, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ.

October 8, 2002.

Summary:

A purchaser defaulted on a take-back mort­gage. The vendor issued a notice of sale. The purchaser commenced a separate action against the vendor seeking a declar­ation that the mortgage was void and unenforceable be­cause the vendor's realtors had falsely represented the zoning. The vendor counter­claimed for the balance owing on the mort­gage and for payment on a guar­antee. The vendor moved for summary judgment.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported at [1998] O.T.C. Uned. 636, allowed the motion and dismissed the purchaser's claim. The court held that false representations were made concerning zoning on behalf of the vendor. However, the mis­representation did not entitle the purchaser to set aside the mortgage contract because of the doctrine of merger. Thereafter, the pur­chaser sued its lawyer, alleging that he had been negligent in not warning it of a zoning restriction. The lawyer commenced a third party claim for contribution against the real­tors who had acted for the vendor. The real­tors commenced a fourth party claim for con­­tribution against the vendor. The vendor moved for summary judgment dismissing the third and fourth party claims. The realtors moved for summary judgment dismissing the third party claim.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported at [2000] O.T.C. Uned. 43, allowed the motions and dismissed the third and fourth party claims on the basis that they were barred by issue estoppel or, alternative­ly, abuse of process. The lawyer appealed the dismissal of the third party claim.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Goudge, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 139 O.A.C. 1, affirmed the dismissal of the third party claim on the basis of abuse of process. The lawyer appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and dismissed the motion for sum­mary judgment.

Estoppel - Topic 386

Estoppel by record (res judicata) - Res judicata as a bar to subsequent proceedings - Issues decided in prior proceedings - A purchaser of real property sued the vendor for a declaration that the mortgage was void and unenforceable because the ven­dor's realtors had made misrepresenta­tions (the mortgage action) - A motions judge granted the vendor summary judg­ment holding that although misrepresenta­tions were made, they did not entitle the pur­chaser to set aside the mortgage because of the doctrine of merger - There­after, the purchaser sued its lawyer in negligence - The lawyer commenced a third party claim against the vendor's realtors - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the summary dis­missal of the third party claim where it would be an abuse of process to allow the lawyer to retry the misrepresentation issue - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed an appeal - It was not a abuse of process to allow the lawyer to bring the claim or to require the realtors to defend it.

Practice - Topic 5361

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Abuse of legal process - [See Estoppel - Topic 386 ].

Counsel:

Valerie A. Edwards and Duncan Embury, for the appellant;

Jeffrey S. Klein and Allen Wassermuhl, for the respondents.

Solicitors of Record:

[not disclosed]

This appeal was heard on October 8, 2002, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Gonthier, Major, Binnie, Arbour, LeBel and Deschamps, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. McLachlin, C.J.C., delivered the following oral judgment in both official languages for the court on the same date.

To continue reading

Request your trial
219 practice notes
  • Barthe v. National Bank Financial Ltd., (2015) 359 N.S.R.(2d) 258 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • May 14, 2015
    ...Enterprises Inc. v. Coles (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 55, per Goudge J.A., dissenting (approved [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307, 2002 SCC 63 (S.C.C.))). Goudge J.A. expanded on that concept in the following terms, at paras. 55-56: The doctrine of abuse of process engages the inherent......
  • Chutskoff Estate v. Bonora et al., (2014) 590 A.R. 288 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • September 16, 2013
    ...520, refd to. [para. 81]. Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 1; 51 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), affd. [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307; 296 N.R. 257; 167 O.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 81]. R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 82]. Toronto......
  • Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., (2003) 179 O.A.C. 291 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 6, 2003
    ...Coles et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 1; 51 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), consd. [para. 37]. Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307; 296 N.R. 257; 167 O.A.C. 1, consd. [para. K.F. et al. v. White (2001), 142 O.A.C. 116; 53 O.R.(3d) 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37]. Bomac Construction L......
  • Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 SCR 77
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 6, 2003
    ...America v. Shulman, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 616, 2001 SCC 21; Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 481, rev’d [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307, 2002 SCC 63; Franco v. White (2001), 53 O.R. (3d) 391; Bomac Construction Ltd. v. Stevenson, [1986] 5 W.W.R. 21; Bjarnarson v. Government of Manitoba (1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
225 cases
  • Barthe v. National Bank Financial Ltd., (2015) 359 N.S.R.(2d) 258 (CA)
    • Canada
    • Nova Scotia Court of Appeal of Nova Scotia (Canada)
    • May 14, 2015
    ...Enterprises Inc. v. Coles (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 55, per Goudge J.A., dissenting (approved [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307, 2002 SCC 63 (S.C.C.))). Goudge J.A. expanded on that concept in the following terms, at paras. 55-56: The doctrine of abuse of process engages the inherent......
  • Chutskoff Estate v. Bonora et al., (2014) 590 A.R. 288 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
    • September 16, 2013
    ...520, refd to. [para. 81]. Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 1; 51 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), affd. [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307; 296 N.R. 257; 167 O.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 63, refd to. [para. 81]. R. v. Scott, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 979; 116 N.R. 361; 43 O.A.C. 277, refd to. [para. 82]. Toronto......
  • Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 et al., (2003) 179 O.A.C. 291 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court of Canada
    • November 6, 2003
    ...Coles et al. (2000), 139 O.A.C. 1; 51 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), consd. [para. 37]. Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles et al., [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307; 296 N.R. 257; 167 O.A.C. 1, consd. [para. K.F. et al. v. White (2001), 142 O.A.C. 116; 53 O.R.(3d) 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37]. Bomac Construction L......
  • Sanofi-Aventis Canada Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd. et al., (2007) 364 N.R. 325 (FCA)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
    • April 23, 2007
    ...( Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles (2000), 51 O.R.(3d) 481 (C.A.), at para. 55, per Goudge, J.A., dissenting (approved [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307; 2002 SCC 63)). Goudge, J.A., expanded on that concept in the following terms at paras. 55-56: 'The doctrine of abuse of process engages the inherent pow......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (April 11 ' 14, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 19, 2022
    ...v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 481 (C.A.), rev'd for the reasons of Goudge J.A., 2002 SCC 63, 790668 Ontario Inc. v. D'Andrea Management Inc., 2015 ONCA 557 Short Civil Decisions 1116227 Ontario Ltd. v. Telus Communication Company, 2......
  • Defence & Indemnity - February 2017: IV. PRACTICE ISSUES A.
    • Canada
    • JD Supra Canada
    • March 13, 2017
    ...Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles (2000), 2000 CanLII 8514 (ON CA), 51 O.R. (3d) 481, at paras. 57-58, per Goudge J.A., dissenting, approved 2002 SCC 63 (CanLII), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 307. The evidentiary reach of s. 22.1 of the Evidence Act has no relevance to that fairness inquiry. 2. It was hel......
  • No Abuse Of Process By Re-Litigation
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • March 20, 2020
    ...2 Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Income Tax Act (“Act”). 3 2003 SCC 63. 4 51 O.R. (3d) 481 (ONCA), approved 2002 SCC 63. 5 See Scarola, 2003 FCA Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the......
  • Coulda, Shoulda? The SCC Expands The Abuse Of Process Doctrine In Behn v. Moulton Contracting Ltd.
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • May 29, 2013
    ...of judges to prevent abuse of the court's process. The Court affirmed the principles set forth in Canam Enterprises Inc. v. Coles, 2002 SCC 63, that abuse of process is unlike the concepts of res judicata (i.e. cause of action estoppel) and issue estoppel which have specific requirements. T......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT