Mujagic v. Kamps: Change In Jurisprudence Not A "Fact Arising" After A Decision Permitting Reconsideration

On May 20, 2015, the Ontario Court of Appeal decided in Mujagic v. Kamps that it has no jurisdiction to set aside its prior decision refusing leave to appeal a Divisional Court ruling on the basis of a subsequent Court of Appeal decision changing the law. For the Court, Justice Doherty held that a change in the law did not amount to a "fact arising" after the decision was made that would allow the Court of Appeal to vary its decision. He also refused to grant an extension of time to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Though the Court of Appeal has this power, he held it should be exercised only in "the most unusual circumstances".

Background

The case emerged from a car accident. A jury found the Defendant 30% responsible for the accident, but awarded the Plaintiff zero damages. The Plaintiff's appeal to the Divisional Court was unsuccessful, as was her motion for leave to appeal the Divisional Court's decision to the Court of Appeal. She then