The Applicant sought to reargue his initial Application to extend time to apply to admit additional evidence that he believed would have changed the Decision which he had appealed.

By way of background, the Applicant filed an Originating Application seeking judicial dispute resolution, reinstatement as a student, and retrieval of intellectual property. A Chambers Judge dismissed his Application, holding there was no remedy the Court could grant. The Appeal of the Chambers Judge’s Decision was scheduled for June 4, 2024. The Applicant filed his initial Application to extend time to apply to admit new evidence in 2023, which was dismissed on December 20, 2023 (the “December 2023 Decision”).

The Court noted that the threshold for granting an extension to admit new evidence is low, considering factors such as the reason for the delay, the effect of the late filing on the Appeal proper, and whether the Application for fresh evidence has a reasonable prospect of success or is prima facie meritorious. The Court further noted that Applications to reargue are allowed only in exceptional circumstances with a high test to meet. Not only should the Applicant disclose the new evidence and explain why it was not available at the time of the original hearing, but the evidence should also be of sufficient importance to alter the earlier Decision.

The self-represented Applicant failed to provide proposed evidence in his initial Application but submitted new documents, including a January 31, 2024 letter from the Respondent’s Privacy and Security Officer and an appeal letter dated January 13, 2022 from the Applicant to the Respondent (the “Appeal Letter”). These documents were not available to him during his initial Application.

The new evidence, particularly the Appeal Letter and a January 14, 2022 email from the Respondent to the Applicant acknowledging receipt of “a letter of appeal”, was crucial to the case as it challenged the Respondent's earlier claims that the Applicant had expressed an intention not to Appeal. The Respondent did not include the Appeal Letter and email in its Affidavit in support of its Summary Dismissal Application and failed to address why these documents were previously omitted.

The Court held that the Applicant met the low threshold for granting an extension of time to apply to admit new evidence and the high test required for an Application to reargue the December 2023 Decision. The Applicant not only provided a reason for the late filing but also disclosed new evidence, explained why it was not available during the initial hearing, and demonstrated that the evidence was of sufficient importance to alter the earlier Decision.

In light of the foregoing, the Court granted the Application to reargue and extended the time to admit new evidence regarding the Appeal Letter, the January 14, 2022 email, and the January 31, 2024 letter. The Court held that it would be up to the Appeal Panel to decide on the admissibility of this new evidence.