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 CanLII 8037 (ON SC), [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.”