The moving parties, a company and its CEO, commenced a private prosecution against a court-appointed receiver under the Environmental Protection Act, alleging the receiver stored excess organic waste.
The receiver brought a motion to stay the prosecution, arguing the moving parties failed to obtain leave of the court as required by the receivership order and that the prosecution was an abuse of process.
The Superior Court of Justice held that a private prosecution is a 'proceeding' requiring leave under the receivership order.
The court refused to grant leave and stayed the prosecution, finding it was an abuse of process because the moving parties were attempting to relitigate the exact same allegations that had previously been dismissed by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal in a prior motion for leave to sue the receiver.
