The Ontario Court of Appeal in Hoang v Mann Engineering Ltd.,
2015 ONCA 838 used Rule 2.1 to dismiss the appellant's
frivolous motion. While the respondents' primary argument was
that Rule 61.16(6.1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure
prohibited the appellant's motion, the respondents' relied
on Rule 2.1 in the alternative. In dismissing the motion, the court
held that the appropriate avenue for arguing that the Court of
Appeal made an error in law was to apply for leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court, and not to bring a motion under Rule 59.06 to amend
The appellant had commenced a suit for damages for wrongful
dismissal, breach of contract, and withheld sales commission, which
the trial court dismissed. The Court of Appeal, in an earlier
decision, allowed an appeal in part. The appellant then brought
forward a motion at the Court of Appeal, in front of a differently
constituted panel, seeking to amend that court's earlier
The respondents' position was that:
 In response to Mr.
Hoang's motion, the respondents submit that the relief sought
is barred by rule 61.16(6.1), which provides:
Subject to rules 37.14 and 59.06, an
order or decision of a panel of an appellate court may not be set
aside or varied under these rules.
 Alternatively, the
respondents submit that Mr. Hoang has provided no compelling reason
to re-open his appeal, but instead reiterates the same arguments
made on two previous occasions. They request that, in these
circumstances, this court should consider using its power under
rule 2.1.02 to declare this motion frivolous, vexatious or
otherwise an abuse of the process of this court and to prohibit Mr.
Hoang from making any further motions in this proceeding without
The Court of Appeal's decision did not deal with whether
Rule 61.16(6.1) barred the relief sought, instead finding that
there was a "sound basis" for exercising its powers under
 On the motion, Mr. Hoang
has not identified any circumstances that would justify ordering a
re-hearing of an appeal by a differently constituted panel. He is
merely attempting to re-argue what are in essence the same
arguments advanced on the original appeal and in the post-hearing
submissions. That is, that the trial judge erred in concluding that
the offer letter of April 21, 2011 was not accepted and that Mr.
Hoang was terminated for cause.
 Mr. Hoang is arguing that
the appeal panel erred in law and in fact by upholding the trial
judge's order and so the appeal should be re-heard. As
indicated by the panel in its previous endorsement, these are
arguments that should be made to the Supreme Court of Canada on an
application for leave to appeal.
The court also emphasized that relief under Rule 59.06 is
granted only in narrow circumstances:
 It needs to be emphasized
that rule 59.06 provides for a very narrow jurisdiction to set
aside or vary an order made by a panel. Any motions relying on this
rule will be monitored by the court under rule 2.1.02 to ensure
that the motion is not frivolous, vexatious or otherwise an abuse
of the process of the court: see for example, Gallos v. Toronto
(City), 2014 ONCA 818. This case does not fit within the very
narrow jurisdiction of rule 59.06, but is one that on its face fits
within rule 2.1.02(1).
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).