The appellant sought to strike paragraphs from the respondents' judicial review application challenging the issuance of uranium exploration permits, arguing the paragraphs constituted an abuse of process in light of two prior actions.
The Court confirmed that the abuse of process doctrine, while applicable to Indigenous litigants, must be assessed with regard to the unique context of Aboriginal rights litigation.
The status of a stayed prior action is not dispositive of whether the Crown has knowledge of an asserted Aboriginal claim sufficient to trigger the duty to consult.
Overlap between a general duty-to-consult action and a specific judicial review application does not, without more, threaten the integrity of the adjudicative process.
Case management, rather than striking pleadings, is the appropriate remedy where there is a risk of inconsistent outcomes from parallel proceedings.
