Chavali v. Canada

The motion to adduce new evidence was dismissed because the appellants did not meet the established three-prong test for admission of new evidence; consequently Rule 351's requirement of 'special circumstances' was not satisfied.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: 2002 FCA 208
Parties: Appellant: Reddy Rajagopal Chavali; Appellant: Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali; Appellant: Reddy Venkatasubbarami Chavali; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada; Respondent: Canadian Judicial Council; Respondent: Law Society of Upper Canada; Respondent: Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company; Respondent: W.D. Chilcott J.; J.B. Chadwick J.; Douglas Cunningham J.; Peter A. Cumming J.; Douglas Coo J.; Archibald J.; Respondent: Andridge Capital Corporation; George Gaty; Chateau Royale Professional Building Inc.; Respondent: Peat Marwick Thorne Inc.; Respondent: Samuel Talbert; Collette Talbert; Respondent: Corporation of the City of Ottawa
Court: Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Canada
Judgment Date: 21 May 2002
Procedural Posture: Appeal – Motion to Admit New Evidence / Hearing on Motion
Outcome: Motion dismissed
Legal Topics: Admission of New Evidence, Federal Court Rules, Rule 351, Three Prong Test for New Evidence, Standard for Special Circumstances
Source Language: en

Civil Procedure Evidence Administrative Law Appeal Admission of New Evidence Federal Court Rules, Rule 351 Three Prong Test for New Evidence Standard for Special Circumstances

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2

Parties

Reddy Rajagopal Chavali

Appellant

Reddy Krishnaveni Chavali

Appellant

Reddy Venkatasubbarami Chavali

Appellant

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada

Respondent

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario

Respondent

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Canadian Judicial Council

Respondent

Law Society of Upper Canada

Respondent

Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company

Respondent

W.D. Chilcott J.; J.B. Chadwick J.; Douglas Cunningham J.; Peter A. Cumming J.; Douglas Coo J.; Archibald J.

Respondent

Andridge Capital Corporation; George Gaty; Chateau Royale Professional Building Inc.

Respondent

Peat Marwick Thorne Inc.

Respondent

Samuel Talbert; Collette Talbert

Respondent

Corporation of the City of Ottawa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal – Motion to Admit New Evidence / Hearing on Motion

Legal Issues

1 Whether appellants satisfied the test for admission of new evidence on appeal under Rule 351
2 Whether the evidence was not discoverable by reasonable diligence, credible, and practically conclusive

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

Motion by appellants to present new evidence dismissed.

Full Case Text

Judgment text and source record

1 paragraphs

Chavali v. Canada Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2002-05-21 Neutral citation 2002 FCA 208 File numbers A-643-00 Decision Content Date: 20020521 Docket: A-643-00, A-222-01 and A-302-01 Neutral Citation: 2002 FCA 208 CORAM: STONE J.A. LINDEN J.A. ISAAC J.A. BETWEEN: REDDY RAJAGOPAL CHAVALI, REDDY KRISHNAVENI CHAVALI, and REDDY VENKATASUBBARAMI CHAVALI Appellants (Plaintiffs) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA; HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO and THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL, AND THE FOLLOWING: THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA; LAWYERS'PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; CHARLES HARNICK; W.D. CHILCOTT J; J.B. CHADWICK J; DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM J; PETER A. CUMMING J; DOUGLAS COO J; ARCHIBALD J: THOMAS J. LOCKWOOD; LOCKWOOD & ASSOCIATES; NELLIGAN-POWER; MARK GEDDES; DAVID CHICK; ARTHUR AULT; GOWLING, STRATHY & HENDERSON; ANDRIDGE CAPITAL CORPORATION; GEORGE GATY; CHATEAU ROYALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING INC; LAURENTIAN BANK OF CANADA; PEAT MARWICK THORNE INC; ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA; THE TORONTO DOMINION BANK; ALLAN O'BRIEN; JAMES MORTON; JERRY LEVITAN; KANNY NG; MAJESTIC KEY MANAGEMENT LTD; SAMUEL TALBERT; COLETTE TALBERT; PIAZZA, BROOKS & SIDDONS; THE CORPORATION FOR THE CITY OF OTTAWA; SOLMON ROTHBART GOODMAN; ANDRE BLUTEAU; MONICA CHARLES; FELIX CHARLES; and KAY CHARLES Respondents (Defendants) REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE COURT BY: STONE J.A. Date: 20020521 Docket: A-643-00, A-222-01 and A-302-01 Neutral Citation: 2002 FCA 208 CORAM: STONE J.A. LINDEN J.A. ISAAC J.A. BETWEEN: REDDY RAJAGOPAL CHAVALI, REDDY KRISHNAVENI CHAVALI, and REDDY VENKATASUBBARAMI CHAVALI Appellants (Plaintiffs) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA; HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO and THE CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL, AND THE FOLLOWING: THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA; LAWYERS'PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY COMPANY; CHARLES HARNICK; W.D. CHILCOTT J; J.B. CHADWICK J; DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM J; PETER A. CUMMING J; DOUGLAS COO J; ARCHIBALD J: THOMAS J. LOCKWOOD; LOCKWOOD & ASSOCIATES; NELLIGAN-POWER; MARK GEDDES; DAVID CHICK; ARTHUR AULT; GOWLING, STRATHY & HENDERSON; ANDRIDGE CAPITAL CORPORATION; GEORGE GATY; CHATEAU ROYALE PROFESSIONAL BUILDING INC; LAURENTIAN BANK OF CANADA; PEAT MARWICK THORNE INC; ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA; THE TORONTO DOMINION BANK; ALLAN O'BRIEN; JAMES MORTON; JERRY LEVITAN; KANNY NG; MAJESTIC KEY MANAGEMENT LTD; SAMUEL TALBERT; COLETTE TALBERT; PIAZZA, BROOKS & SIDDONS; THE CORPORATION FOR THE CITY OF OTTAWA; SOLMON ROTHBART GOODMAN; ANDRE BLUTEAU; MONICA CHARLES; FELIX CHARLES; and KAY CHARLES Respondents (Defendants) Page 2 REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on Tuesday, May 21, 2002) l. This is a motion by the appellants to present new evidence on these appeals pursuant to Rule 351 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998, which provides for the reception of new evidence in "special circumstances". 2. Having regard to the appellants' arguments, we are not persuaded that they have brought their motion within the three-prong test developed by the jurisprudence of this Court under former Rule 1102. Thus in Frank Brunckhorst Co. v. Gainers Inc. (1993), 42 A.C.W.S. (3d) 773 (F.C.A.), MacGuigan J.A. stated: The jurisprudence under Rule 1102 establishes that, for the admission of new evidence, the Court should be satisfied that the evidence (1) must not have been discoverable before the end of the hearing appealed from by reasonable diligence, (2) must be credible, and (3) must be practically conclusive of an issue on the appeal. 3. The motion will therefore be dismissed. "A.J. STONE" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-643-00, A-222-01, A-302-01 STYLE OF CAUSE: Reddy Rajagopal Chavali et al. v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada et al. PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario DATE OF HEARING: May 21, 2002 REASONS FOR ORDER : STONE J.A. DATED: May 21, 2002 APPEARANCES: Reddy Rajagopal Chavali FOR THE APPELLANTS Reddy Krishna Veni Chavali Reddy Venkatasubbarami Chavali ( On their own behalf ) Ms. Susanne Perreira Mr. Don Rennie FOR THE RESPONDENTS HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL. Ms. Ainslie Benedict FOR THE RESPONDENTS LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA, LAWYERS' PROFESSIONAL IDEMNITY COMPANY, THOMAS J. LOCKWOOD ASSOCIATES, NELLIGAN POWER, MARK GEDDES, DAVID CHICK, ARTHUR AULT, GOWLING STRATHY & HENDERSON, ALLAN O'BRIEN, JAMES MORTON, JERRY LEVITAN, PIAZZA BROOKS & SIDDONS, SOLMON ROTHBART GOODMAN, ANDRE BLUTEAU, TORONTO DOMINION BANK, ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA. Mr. Thomas C. Barber FOR THE RESPONDENTS W.D. CHILCOOT J., B. CHADWICK J., DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM J., PETER A. CUMMING J., DOUGLAS COO J. AND ARCHIBALD J. Mr. Barry Garland FOR THE RESPONDENTS ANDRIDGE CAPITAL CORPORATION, GEORGE GATY, CHATEAU ROYAL PROFESSIONAL BUILDING INC. Mr. Erice M. Appotive FOR THE RESPONDENT PEAT MARVICK THORNE INC. Mr. Larry Reimer FOR THE RESPONDENTS HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO AND CHARLES HARNICK, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO. Mr. Roderick Brooks FOR THE RESPONDENTS SAMUEL TALBERT AND COLLETTE TALBERT Ms. Ivana Baldelli FOR THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA. SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Reddy Rajagopal Chavali FOR THE APPELLANTS Reddy Krishna Veni Chavali Reddy Venkatasubbarami Chavali ( On their own behalf) Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENTS HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, CANADIAN JUDICIAL COUNCIL. Nelligan Power LLP Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENTS LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA, LAWYERS' PROFESSIONAL IDEMNITY COMPANY, THOMAS J. LOCKWOOD ASSOCIATES, NELLIGAN POWER, MARK GEDDES, DAVID CHICK, ARTHUR AULT, GOWLING STRATHY & HENDERSON, ALLAN O'BRIEN, JAMES MORTON, JERRY LEVITAN, PIAZZA BROOKS & SIDDONS, SOLMON ROTHBART GOODMAN, ANDRE BLUTEAU, ROYAL TRUST CORPORATION OF CANADA Burke-Robertson Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENTS W.D. CHILCOOT J., B. CHADWICK J., DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM J., PETER A. CUMMING J., DOUGLAS COO J. AND ARCHIBALD J. Goldberg, Kronick & Strout Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENTS ANDRIDGE CAPITAL CORPORATION, GEORGE GATY, CHATEAU ROYAL PROFESSIONAL BUILDING INC. Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT LAURENTIAN BANK OF CANADA Hamilton Appotive Callan Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT PEAT MARVICK THORNE INC. Mr. Colin C. Taylor Toronto Dominion Bank Legal Dept. Toronto, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT TORONTO DOMINION BANK Piazza, Brooks & Siddons Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENTS SAMUEL TALBERT AND COLLETTE TALBERT Ms. Ivana Baldelli City of Ottawa Legal Dept. Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OTTAWA

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.