What is the effect of inconsistent pleadings in separate proceedings?

Whether taking contrary positions on the same issues in separate proceedings, i.e. inconsistent pleadings, constitutes an abuse of process depends on the context and circumstances of each case: Mystar at para. 53; Stewart v. Clark, 2013 BCCA 359 at para. 51.

In Halagan v. Reifel, 1997 CarswellBC 4040, Madam Justice Satanove considered an application to amend pleadings. She refused to do so and dismissed the application because the proposed amendments were inconsistent. She found they constituted approbation and reprobation. At para. 8 she stated: … [N]either pleadings nor any other of the court processes are a game to be played according to what appears to be a strategic advantage of the time. The court expects a party to take a position which is consistent with its evidence and to maintain that position in its dealings with the court. In other words, saying something to one judge and saying the opposite to another will not be countenanced.