The respondent believed that Application #3 had been dismissed more than one year ago as a result of the identical Application, Application #1, having been dismissed as abandoned. Finality, or the end to litigation, and the related concern that a party not be required to repeatedly respond to the same case are key concerns of our legal system. See, Cunningham v. CUPE 4400, 2011 HRTO 658. I find that it is unfair for the respondent to have to repeatedly respond to identical Applications, one of which has already been adjudicatively dismissed as abandoned. For these reasons, I dismiss Application #3. ORDER
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.