Court File and Parties

Citation: Coady v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2016 ONSC 7543 Divisional Court File No.: 249/12 Date: 2016-12-02

Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Martha Coady v. Law Society of Upper Canada

Before: Nordheimer J.

Heard at Toronto: written submissions

Endorsement

[1] On September 30, 2014, a panel of this court dismissed Ms. Coady’s appeal from a decision of an appeal panel of the Law Society of Upper Canada.[^1] Ms. Coady has now filed a motion in writing for an order “directing a reconsideration of the merits of the appeal” based on the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, [2016] S.C.J. No. 27. She has filed a factum in support of that motion.

[2] I have concluded that this motion must be dismissed pursuant to r. 2.1 on the basis that it is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the court’s process. I reach that conclusion on the basis that there is no jurisdiction in this court for a panel to reconsider its decision, in the circumstances that are presented by this case. There is no section in the *Courts of Justice Act*, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 nor is there any rule in the *Rules of Civil Procedure*, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, that expressly provides for a reconsideration, by a panel, of an earlier decision.

[3] Assuming, without deciding, that there is some scope in r. 59.06(2) that might implicitly authorize a reconsideration, that authority could only apply where the party asking for the reconsideration is seeking to obtain “other relief than that originally awarded”. Ms. Coady is not seeking other relief. She is seeking the same relief that she was denied on the original hearing. What Ms. Coady is actually trying to do is to reargue the case based on a different ground. That is not what is contemplated by r. 59.06(2)(d).

[4] Interestingly, Ms. Coady relies on the decision in Hoang v. Mann Engineering Ltd., [2015] O.J. No. 6316 (C.A.) as authority for her motion for reconsideration. In my view, the decision in Hoang decides the opposite. Indeed, in that case, the Court of Appeal also used r. 2.1 to dismiss an attempt to seek a reconsideration where it found that the appellant was simply attempting to reargue the appeal. It too found that r. 59.06(2) did not authorize such a motion in that case.

[5] In the normal instance, Ms. Coady’s remedy would be to seek leave to appeal from this court’s decision. However, it appears that Ms. Coady never took any steps to seek leave to appeal, and now more than two years have passed since this court’s decision, so that route may no longer be available to Ms. Coady.[^2]

[6] I conclude, therefore, that there is no jurisdiction for the panel to review its earlier order. Consequently, the motion here is without merit, and thus constitutes a proceeding that is frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the court’s process. The applicant’s motion is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

NORDHEIMER J.

Date: December 2, 2016

[^1]: Coady v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2014 ONSC 5711, [2014] O.J. No. 4664 (Div. Ct.)

[^2]: Ms. Coady’s inaction regarding seeking leave to appeal from this court’s 2014 decision is referred to in Coady v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2015] O.J. No. 6967 (C.A.).