A Superior Court judgment is upheld by the Court of Appeal. The
unsuccessful party then moves to re-open the case and introduce new
evidence in light of having discovered new facts. Should the motion
in this respect be brought in the Superior Court or the Court of
Appeal? In his August 21, 2014 decision in Mehedi v. 2057161 Ontario Inc. (Job
Success), Juriansz J.A. of the Ontario Court of Appeal
answered this question – the motion must be brought in the
Superior Court, and it is preferable, though not essential, that
the motion be brought before the trial judge.
Mehedi had been the unsuccessful plaintiff in an action alleging
fraud. After the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, he attempted
to bring a motion before the trial judge to introduce new evidence,
arguing that new evidence had come to light that impugned the
defendants' credibility as witnesses (the essential issue at
trial). After unsuccessful procedural manoeuvring lasting over a
year, and being unable to have the trial judge hear his motion, a
Superior Court judge held that "directions should be sought
from [the Court of Appeal] as to a motion to reopen the appeal for
the introduction of newly discovered evidence." Juriansz J.A.
heard Mehedi's motion for advice and direction "with
respect to the court, the judge and the manner in which a motion to
introduce new evidence after final judgment at trial has been
Juriansz J.A. began by considering Rule 59.06(2) of the Rules of
A party who seeks to,
have an order set aside or varied on the ground of fraud or of
facts arising or discovered after it was made;
suspend the operation of an order;
carry an order into operation; or
obtain other relief than that originally awarded,
may make a motion in the proceeding for the relief claimed.
He then pointed out that in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz
Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59,  2 S.C.R. 983:
 ... the Supreme Court indicated that the discretion to
reopen the trial is the trial judge's. The trial judge is in
the best position to decide whether fairness dictates that the
trial be reopened. The trial judge should exercise his or her
discretion to reopen the trial "sparingly and with the
greatest care" so that "fraud and abuse of the
[c]ourt's processes" do not result: Sagaz, at para.
 In Sagaz, however, the trial judge was asked to reopen the
trial before the appeal, whereas in Mr. Mehedi's case, the
appeal has already been heard and determined.
In light of other cases, however, Juriansz J.A. was satisfied
that even where the Court of Appeal has upheld the trial
judge's decision, a motion to re-open the case and introduce
new evidence must be brought in the trial court, and that it is
preferable – though not essential – that it be brought
before the same judge who heard the trial:
 [t]he rationale of rule 59.06(2)(a) continues to apply even
though an appeal has been determined. An appeal merely
concludes there is no reversible error at trial. The rule allows an
order to be set aside or varied, not because of any mistake in the
proceedings, but because it has become apparent that the decision
was wrong due to fraud or other facts discovered after it was
made. [Emphasis added.]
 While a motion under rule 59.06(2) must be brought in the
Superior Court, it need not be brought before the trial judge. This
is made clear by rule 37.14(4), which provides:
A motion under...any...rule to set aside, vary or amend an order
[including judgment] of a judge may be made,
to the judge who made it, at any place; or
to any other judge, at a place determined in accordance with
 Rule 37.03 merely requires that the motion be brought in
the county where the proceeding was commenced or to which it has
 While the law does not require the trial judge whose
judgment is at issue to hear the rule 59.06(2) motion, it is
preferable for the trial judge to do so. The trial judge is already
familiar with all of the evidence at trial, and is well-suited to
expeditiously determine whether the alleged fraud or the new
evidence requires the trial judgment to be set aside.
 In this case, Mr. Mehedi seeks to undermine the credibility
findings made by the trial judge with the new evidence. However, as
the trial judge has already declined to hear the motion, Mr. Mehedi
must bring his motion before another judge in motions court in the
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).