In the case of Cicada Ventures Ltd. v KGHM Ajax Mining Inc., the plaintiff, Cicada, had initiated legal action against KGHM concerning a mining project near Kamloops, British Columbia. Cicada had alleged that in a December 30, 2013, agreement, they had agreed to sell their mineral claims to KGHM for $1,350,000, with KGHM also being obligated to conduct mineral exploration on Cicada's claims. Cicada had claimed that KGHM breached this agreement. Legal proceedings had commenced in 2016 when Cicada had filed a civil claim against KGHM. Later, on May 11, 2023, Cicada had made amendments to its claim. KGHM had contended that these amendments were improper, arguing that they had introduced new causes of action that were time-barred by the Limitation Act. Cicada had defended the amendments, asserting that they hadn't introduced new causes of action or, if they had, they weren't statute-barred. Cicada had further requested the court's permission to make these amendments. KGHM had also claimed that Cicada's amendments had constituted an abuse of process, citing that Cicada had sought these changes after the court had dismissed their document production application and just before KGHM's summary trial application. The court had rejected KGHM's abuse of process argument, finding no evidence of Cicada attempting to delay or obstruct KGHM's summary trial application. Consequently, the court hadn't found Cicada's actions to be an abuse of the legal process. No specific information regarding a financial award had been provided in the case.