Civil procedure

Res Judicata

Res Judicata - A matter already judged

• 
  You cannot litigate a matter that has already been litigated by the same parties
  
• 
  Once there is a final decision, judge will use doctrine to preserve effect of earlier decision
  

Rationale for Res Judicata

1. 
   Prevents wasting time
   

 This recognizes the value of scare judicial resources. If a competent judge decides a matter, it is decided (barring appeals)

2. 
   Prevents inconsistent decision-making by judges
   

 We don’t want judges coming to diff results, makes courts look bad

3. 
   Gives D some comfort that if they did something wrong, they only have to pay one time for it
   

 D only has to pay damages once

4. 
   Prevents costs for the litigants associated w/ duplicative litigation
   

 This avoid exposing parties to additional costs

Res Judicata is not Stare Decisis

• 
  Stare Decisis: A rule of law in an earlier case can determine the result of following cases
  
• 
  Res Judicata: Doctrine that prevents the same parties from re-litigating the same issue. Procedural in nature.
  
  • 
    Much less discretion involved. Can be avoided but only under special circumstances that would make it unjust not to allow the matter to be tried again.
    

2 Branches of Res Judicata: Cause of Action Estoppel & Issue Estoppel

2 Branches of Res Judicata

1. 
   Cause of Action Estoppel
   
2. 
   Issue Estoppel
   

 The same party should not be harassed twice for the same complaint & there is societal value in the finality & conclusiveness of judicial decisions

• 
  CAUSE OF ACTION ESTOPPEL (also referred to merger estoppel)
  

• 
  Prevents a party from re-litigating a specific claim based on same/similar facts
  
• 
  Has an historic basis in old writs under the common law – each specific writ could not be used more than once between the parties to a specific dispute
  
• 
  If A sues B, and A loses, A cannot sue B again for the same cause of action…Or even if A won and later discovers more damages, cannot sue B again  only one bite at the apple
  
  • 
    Example: Someone is injured on a particular set of facts, attempts to sue for cause of action and wins/loses, then tries to come back for a different cause of action on the same facts. Only one bite at the apple
    

UVIC Student Society v CFS (Canadian Federation of Students)

[Res Judicata; Cause of action estoppel]

FACTS

UVic took CFS to Court in order to hold referendum and CFS lost. At a later time, the CFS said again they wouldn’t hold referendum and applied for additional relief. UVic claimed that Res Judicata should apply to preclude CFS from raising outstanding fees, as it should have been brought up at the first instance.

HOLDING

Referendum appeal blocked by res judicata.

• 
  Court said that CFS should’ve raised that the first time around, and were not allowed to bring it up again
  

RULE

Once you’ve put forward the facts that support a certain cause of action and you ask the court to evaluate the facts against that cause of action, you’re not permitted at a later date to ask for a different cause of action for the same/similar set of facts

• 
  When those facts were put forward, you should have asked for all available money stemming from all available causes of actions.
  
• 
  This helps to avoid constantly seeking additional damages stemming from the original act or omission  Litigate 5 issues at once to save judicial resources, not 5 issues 1 at a time.
  

• 
  ISSUE ESTOPPEL
  

Issue Estoppel prevents issues that have been conclusively determined from being re-litigated again when conducted between two parties. If the question of fact/law/mixed fact and law was a crucial part of the original decision, it cannot be used again to litigate a separate cause of action (assuming they are closely related)

• 
  More discretionary than COA Estoppel (while still related), court still has ultimate discretion to decide whether issue can be re-litigated
  
• 
  Clearly they want to avoid a waste of time and judicial resources
  
• 
  Also unfair financially to party who lost the first time, destined to lose again
  

Example: Try to sue for damages in a car accident, you better bring any personal injury claims in the same action. If you don’t do that, try to bring one claim for your car and later want to bring a separate claim for injury claims in the same accident. You will be stopped from doing that.
Requirements for Issue Estoppel – TEST (Angle v Minister of National Justice)

1. 
   Same question has been decided
   
2. 
   Earlier judicial decision was final and on the merits
   
3. 
   Parties to both proceedings are the same, or they’re privy (see mutuality/privity of interest)
   
4. 
   **Threshold: Considers fairness issue. Are there residual discretion not to apply issue estoppels even where the 3 criteria are met, for its application would work an injustice? (Penner)
   

*Note: Issue Estoppel can apply to administrative decision makers

• 
  Mutuality/Privity of Interest
  

Privity - relationship b/w persons who successively have a legal interest in the same right or property

• 
  Privity of interest rests on concept of mutuality. Must be a sufficient degree of connection or identification between the two parties
  
• 
  Made on a case-by-case basis b/c it is impossible to be categorical about degree of interest that will create privity
  
• 
  Example - If one party brings a claim, and then a subsidiary company brings a similar claim, they might be considered privy and barred by a cause of action estoppel.
  
• 
  One guidepost to see mutuality:
  

Whether the new party seeking to take advantage of the previous judgment, would have been bound if the decision went the other way.

• 
  If it went against the party, would it actually go against their privy?
  

Penner v Niagara (Regional Police Services Board)

[Court may allow re-litigation despite 3 requirements of issue estoppel met;

ADM not as strong fact finding agents]

FACTS

Mr. P arrested for disruptive behavior in courtroom. He filed a complaint against the police for unlawful arrest and had a hearing at an admin tribunal, then lost. Mr. P also trying to make civil action. Police trying to have civil claims struck out by issue estoppel.

RULE

Even if the 3 constituent requirement of issue estoppel have been met, Court may allow re-litigation of issues if there is a fairness issue and it would be unfair to allow results of first proceeding to preclude subsequent claim

• 
  Issue estoppel may apply in administrative settings, but tribunals are not as strong fact finding agents. As such, their decisions should not be predicative of all other civil or criminal actions.
  

ANALYSIS

3 steps have been met here for Issue Estoppel, but even if the prior proceeding has been conducted fairly, it might be unfair the results of the first proceeding to preclude the subsequent claim.

• 
  In this case, P could not have reasonably foreseen that the decision at the tribunal would effectively strip him of his rights in his civil pursuit (*Fairness issue)
  
• 
  Also in the admin case, Penner is more like a complainant instead of a plaintiff – tribunals are not as strong fact finding agents as trials and do not afford same procedural safeguards
  
• 
  Even where courts recognize issue estoppel, they may allow matter to proceed on same issue, where overwhelming public policy good would be served
  
  • 
    Here, the police are trying to exonerate their own guys and thus, it’s obvious that issues of fairness makes it pressing that the tribunal decision shouldn't influence civil action
    

HOLDING

Appeal allowed, Penner allowed to pursue civil action.

DISSENT

There is nothing inherently wrong with relying on administrative tribunals when it comes to fact finding. Their fact findings may be good enough to prevent civil litigation based on issue estoppel.

• 
  Should respect admin tribunals and allow them greater autonomy and respect