COURT FILE NO.: 70/07
DATE: 20071121
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HOILETT, GANS AND SWINTON JJ.
B E T W E E N:
MARY MARTHA COADY
Appellant
- and -
THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA
Respondent
In Person
J. Thomas Curry and
Jaan Lilles, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: November 21, 2007
swinton J.: (Orally)
[1] The appellant has brought a motion for leave to introduce fresh evidence so that she can compel attendance of R.C.M.P. officers to give evidence regarding offshore accounts of certain individuals. This evidence does not pass the test for the introduction of fresh evidence, as the proposed evidence is not relevant to the matter before us - namely, whether Cumming J. erred in finding that the appeal should be quashed because the decision appealed from is interlocutory in nature.
[2] Therefore, as the proposed evidence could not affect the decision of Cumming J. or our decision, the evidence is inadmissible and the motion is dismissed.
[3] The appellant has brought a motion pursuant to s.21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1970, c.C.43 to set aside the order of Cumming J., dated February 16, 2007. Cumming J. quashed the appellant’s appeal to this Court because her appeal was from an interlocutory decision – namely, the Hearing Panel’s decision to recuse itself for reasonable apprehension of bias and the Appeal Panel’s decision to quash her appeal of that decision.
[4] Pursuant to s.49.38 of the Law Society Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.L.8, an appeal lies to this Court from a final decision or order of the Appeal Panel if the Appeal Panel’s final decision or order was made on an appeal from a decision or order of the Hearing Panel under s.31(3).
[5] An appeal may be quashed when it is manifestly devoid of merit (see Schmidt v. Toronto Dominion Bank (1995), 1995 3502 (ON CA), 37 C.P.C. (3d) 383 (C.A.) at paragraph 6).
[6] The appellant has not shown that Cumming J. erred in concluding that the decision appealed from is interlocutory in nature. The cases relied on with respect to a mistrial do not assist in determining whether the decision appealed in this case is interlocutory. The motions judge had discretion whether to hear the motion to quash or refer it for consideration by the panel.
[7] In our view, there is no basis to set aside his order. Therefore, the motion to vary is dismissed.
HOILETT J.
[8] We are of the view that costs in the amount of $3,000 is not unreasonable and is so ordered.
SWINTON J.
HOILETT J.
GANS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 21, 2007
Date of Release:
COURT FILE NO.: 70/07
DATE: 20071121
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HOILETT, GANS AND SWINTON JJ.
B E T W E E N:
MARY MARTHA COADY
Appellant
- and -
THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 21, 2007
Date of Release: