The court dismissed the plaintiff's action against two defendants as an abuse of process, finding it to be a collateral attack on a prior Small Claims Court proceeding regarding the enforceability of a settlement agreement.
The court held that the plaintiff's claim was a pre-emptive collateral attack and that allowing it to proceed would force the defendants to fight a "two-front war." The court also addressed the status of the claim against a third defendant, Dixon, and clarified the application of Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
