The appellant appealed a decision dismissing a motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff and recertify a class proceeding.
The motion judge had previously decertified the action after the original representative plaintiff was found unsuitable and class counsel failed to find a replacement within the allotted 60 days.
Almost two years later, class counsel brought a motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff.
The motion judge dismissed the motion as an abuse of process, finding it amounted to relitigation and raised concerns about the lack of a costs indemnity agreement.
The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the abuse of process doctrine or his factual findings.
