Issue Estoppel vs. Abuse of Process

In Peter B. Cozzi Professional Corporation v. Szot, 2019 ONSC 5071, the court went over the differences between the doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The purpose of both doctrines is to promote finality to litigation. Duplicative litigation, potential inconsistent results, undue costs, and inconclusive proceedings are to be avoided.

Issue estoppel (which is a branch of the doctrine of res judicata) precludes re-litigation of an issue if the following three requirements are satisfied:

• the same question has been decided;
• the judicial decision said to give rise to the estoppel is final; and
• the parties to the judicial decision or their privies were the same persons as the parties to the proceeding in which the estoppel is raised or their privies.

However, even if all three requirements are met, the court still has residual discretion to not apply issue estoppel when its application would work an injustice.

Abuse of process precludes re-litigation when it would undermine the integrity of the adjudicative process. It is a discretionary principle.

It derives from the inherent duty and power of the court to prevent the misuse of its procedure and maintain public confidence in the proper administration of justice, including the orderly, efficient, timely, and principled resolution of civil disputes.

Abuse of process is a flexible doctrine unencumbered by the specific requirements of issue estoppel.

Therefore, the requirements for a finding of issue estoppel are more stringent as compared to abuse of process.