The plaintiff debt collection agency brought motions for substituted service in three actions commenced in the Superior Court of Justice in Milton against defendants residing in other jurisdictions for amounts well below the Small Claims Court monetary limit.
The court, on its own initiative, considered whether this practice constituted an abuse of process.
The court found that while the practice did not violate any specific rule or statute, it amounted to an abuse of process by systemically disadvantaging out-of-jurisdiction defendants and creating barriers to access to justice.
Relying on its inherent jurisdiction, the court transferred the actions to the Small Claims Court in the defendants' respective home jurisdictions and granted the requested orders for substituted service.
