The Appellant applied to appeal a Case Management Judge’s Decision holding her in Contempt of Court. The Case Management Judge had held the Appellant in Contempt of Court for failing to pay a Costs Award. Part of the sanction was to dismiss an Application brought by the Appellant to add certain Respondents (the “Grant Thornton Respondents”) to the main Action.

The Appellant argued that this was not a remedy available to the Case Management Judge. The Case Management Judge had previously granted a Fiat allowing the Appellant to make an Application to add the Grant Thornton Respondents. The Appellant argued that the Case Management Judge was functus officio after granting the Fiat.

The Court of Appeal stated that the Case Management Judge is not functus officio once they grant a Fiat, and that it was open to the Case Management Judge to revisit or withdraw the Fiat.  Additionally, Rule 10.53(1)(d) allowed the Case Management Judge to strike out pleadings as a sanction for Contempt of Court. The granting of the Fiat did not immunize the Appellant from that remedy.

The Court considered a side issue as the Appellant had filed an amended Factum that included fresh evidence. However, the Appellant did not file an Application to adduce fresh evidence pursuant to Rules 14.45 and 14.70, and accordingly, the Court did not consider any of the fresh evidence.