Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

RES JUDICATA (📚 [Definition] Res judicata determines the effects that…

- - - - 🔱 Rule of Three Identities: The conditions relating to the application of the presumption of res judicata are clearly established in article 2848 CCQ, which provides that the presumption "applies only to the object of the judgment when the demand is based on the same cause and is between the same parties acting in the same qualities and the thing applied for is the same."
        
        The identity of the parties required to invoke res judicata is legal rather than merely physical. The judgment is opposable to the parties to the proceedings and to all persons represented by those parties. The representation is not only a simple statement of fact, it must also be legal to assert identity of the parties.
        
        The cause of action is generally defined as the legal basis giving rise to the right claimed.
        
        The object of a legal action is the "thing sought," that is, the right that a party seeks to have recognized, reduced or annulled, the immediate legal benefit it seeks to obtain in addressing the court.
      - 📘 Jurisclasseur:
        [Chose jugée - Latin Definition - Purpose] La chose jugée was originally a concept known in Roman law by the maxim res judicata pro veritate habetur: the thing judged is held as the truth... Essentially, the courts seek to prevent a multiplicity of appeals raising the same issues, in the name of a sound administration of justice and respect for the authority of the courts.
      - 🍴 [Unlike Common Law - Inapplicable to Issues which Could have been Raised]
        Unlike common law, la chose jugée does not extend to issues which could have been decided. It only applies to issues which were actually decided by the judge, either explicitly or by necessary implication.
      - 📚 Articles:
        ⚖️ 2848 CCQ [Re Judicata - Absolute Presumption - Three Identities] The authority of res judicata is an absolute presumption; it applies only to the object of the judgment when the demand is based on the same cause and is between the same parties acting in the same qualities and the thing applied for is the same. / However, a judgment deciding a class action has the authority of res judicata with respect to the parties and the members of the group who have not excluded themselves therefrom.
        ⚖️ 2633 CCQ [Transaction - Res Judicata - Homologation] A transaction has, between the parties, the authority of res judicata. / A transaction is not subject to forced execution until it is homologated.
        📗 168 CCP [Motion to Dismiss - Res Judicata] A party may ask that an application or a defence be dismissed if there is res judicata.
        📗 563 CCP [Judgment vis Parties/Claim - No Citing for same Cause in Different Court] The judgment has the authority of res judicata only with respect to the parties to the dispute and for the amount claimed. It cannot be cited in an application between the same parties for the same cause before a different court. Any application or proof based on the judgment must be dismissed by the court on its own initiative or on a party’s request.
      - 🎗️ Singer Manufacturing [Appeal Affects only Issue Raised]: A successful appeal breaks res judicata only with respect to issues raised in the appeal, and may not be extended to other aspects of the trial judgment.
        🏪 Beaudry c. 4013964 Canada Inc [Obiter - Bad Law Unappealed] Statements made in obiter from past decisions are not res judicata. In case of doubt, in order to be considered res judicata, the statements must be directly linked to the operative part of the past judgment.
        If a past case is wrong but it is not appealed, it remains res judicata.
  - - - 🎬 [Cause of Action Estoppel - No Relitigating same Cause of Action - 3 Conditions]: Cause of action estoppel is intended to prevent the re-litigation of claims that have already been decided. applies where the plaintiff is prevented from proceeding because his or her cause of action was, or should have been, decided in previous litigation. Cause of action estoppel applies where the following three conditions are met:
        
        The plaintiff's claims were, or should have been, decided in previous litigation;
        
        The previous litigation was final; and
        
        The parties, or their privies, were parties to both the previous and the current proceedings.
        
        📙 Evidence (Stewart)
      - 🍒 [Danyluk - Finality - Quote]: "The law rightly seeks a finality to litigation. To advance that objective, it requires litigants to put their best foot forward to establish the truth of their allegations when first called upon to do so. A litigant, to use the vernacular, is only entitled to one bite at the cherry... Duplicative litigation, potential inconsistent results, undue costs, and inconclusive proceedings are to be avoided."
      - 🏛️ [Res Judicata Applies to Administrative Tribunals]: Doctrines of res rudicata have been extended to decisions classified as being of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature pronounced by administrative officers and tribunals (Danyluk).
      - 🖕[Collateral Attack - Wrong Court!]: A judicial order pronounced by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be brought into question in subsequent proceedings except those provided by law for the express purpose of attacking it (Danyluk).
        
        ♠️ [Collateral Attack - Distinction in Toronto v CUPE - Only Applies to Overturning]: The collateral attack doctrine applies when the appellant seeks to overturn a conviction itself, not when he is rather contesting, for the purposes of a different claim with different legal consequences, whether the conviction was correct.
      - 👹 Abuse of Process: Engages the inherent power of the court to prevent the misuse of its procedure, in a way that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It has been applied to preclude relitigation in circumstances where the strict requirements of issue estoppel are not met, but where allowing litigation to proceed would nonetheless violate such principles as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice (Toronto v CUPE).
        
        👺 [Toronto v CUPE - No Forum Shopping]: It is improper is to attempt to impeach a judicial finding by the impermissible route of relitigation in a different forum.
        
        Abuse of Process in 📙 Evidence (Stewart): Canadian courts have recognized a doctrine akin to cause of action estoppel where a party seeks to re-litigate an issue where the requirements of cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel are not met. While the mutuality requirement continues to be a requirement for cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel, where the mutuality requirement is not met, an action or an administrative proceeding may be dismissed on the ground that it would be an abuse of process for a party to re-litigate an issue.... The doctrine of estoppel on the basis of abuse of process can also operate analogously to issue estoppel, preventing a party from leading evidence to contradict a fact determined in other proceedings. In these circumstances, estoppel on the basis of abuse of process is analogous to issue estoppel, but without mutuality.
      - 🤔 Issue Estoppel: Issue estoppel applies to prevent re-litigation of a particular factual issue, even where the cause of action is not the same, when the following three conditions are met:
        
        The same question has been decided in previous litigation;
        
        The judicial decision that decided it was final; and
        
        The parties, or their privies, were parties to that judicial decision and to the proceedings in which the estoppel is asserted (see also Danyluk).
        
        However, the application of issue estoppel is discretionary; even where all three conditions are satisfied, a court has a discretion to allow the issue to be re-litigated in the current proceedings.
        
        📙 Evidence (Stewart)
        
        👔 [Danyluk - Issue Estoppel - Exception - Unjust Decisions - Discretion] Finality is a compelling consideration, but the doctrine of issue estoppel exists as a policy mechanism to ensure the interests of justice are met. Where it bars the door to judicial action after a manifestly unjust administrative decision, it should not be applied.
        
        Even once the three conditions for issue estoppel have been established, the trial judge enjoys residual discretion to apply the estoppel or not. When a judicial proceeding was manifestly unjust, the discretion should operate against the imposition of estoppel.