What are the consequences of the pleadings?

I should say, to begin with, that I do not think the pleadings are "frivolous" in the legal sense of being obviously unsustainable. They assert a triable cause which is not estopped at law (see Chrisgian v. BC Rail Ltd. et. al. (unreported), July 6, 1992, No. 20714 Prince George (S.C.). Nor do I think the pleadings are vexatious or harassing. This is not a case of multiple proceedings, but a substitution of one for another in circumstances that, once there is an adjudication, will put an end to the issues between the parties.

Respecting the argument that what has occurred is an abuse of process, the court must, I think, be concerned with the petitioners' conduct. By analogy to Fox v. Star Newspaper (supra), it is possible to find that, having reached "a stage of the action ... at which the adversaries are meeting face to face" the petitioners resort to the expedient of discontinuance rather than engagement, is unacceptable. I do not doubt that it is within the inherent jurisdiction of this court in controlling its own process, to strike out a subsequent claim in circumstances where injustice would result if matters were to continue. This might be the case, for example, where exactly the same matter is revived with no suggestion that there is new evidence or that other relevant circumstances have changed since the first discontinuance. V