COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: 1758704 Ontario Inc. v. Priest, 2022 ONCA 126

DATE: 20220210

DOCKET: M52869 (C68390)

Benotto, Miller and Trotter JJ.A.

BETWEEN

1758704 Ontario Inc. and 1191305 Ontario Inc.

Plaintiffs (Respondents/Appellants by way of cross-appeal)

and

Carl Priest

Defendant (Appellant/Respondent by way of cross-appeal)

AND BETWEEN

Carl Priest and 1737161 Ontario Limited

Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (Appellants/Respondents by way of cross-appeal)

and

1758704 Ontario Inc., 1191305 Ontario Inc. and Martin Donkers

Defendants by Counterclaim (Respondents/Appellants by way of cross-appeal)

Maanit Zemel, for the appellants/respondents by way of cross-appeal

Krista McKenzie, for the respondents/appellants by way of cross-appeal

Heard: In writing

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] This is a motion for a reconsideration of the determination of this appeal.

[2] On August 30, 2021, this panel released its decision:

i. Allowing the appellant’s appeal against the dismissal of its counterclaim;

ii. Remitting the matter back to the Superior Court for an assessment of damages;

iii. Dismissing the cross-appeal against the trial judge’s award of damages in the main action.

[3] On September 9, 2021, the respondents wrote to the court seeking to make further submissions. The Executive Legal Officer of the court wrote to the parties and said:

The panel will not be entertaining further submissions on the substantive matters and accordingly will not be addressing the other issues set out in counsels’ correspondence.

[4] Five months later, in February 2022, the same respondents brought this motion seeking to re-argue the appeal. They raise issues the court already said would not be entertained. For that reason alone, the motion must fail. In any event, the respondents have not come close to the high hurdle required to cause the court to reopen the appeal: see Meridian Credit Union Ltd. v. Baig, 2016 ONCA 942, at para. 7; RINC Consulting Inc. (Roustan Capital) v. Grant Thornton LLP, 2020 ONCA 182, at para. 41. Nor did they establish an “accidental slip or omission” of the court’s order to satisfy r. 59.06: Baig, at para. 6.

[5] The motion is dismissed with costs in the all-inclusive amount of $6,000.

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“B.W. Miller J.A.”

“Gary Trotter J.A.”