I believe at least one other consideration is relevant on the issue of miscarriage of justice. The cases consider the possibility that an application to re-open may “permit a litigant after discovering the effect of a judgment to re-establish a broken-down case with the aid of further proof.” I find that in this case the petitioner’s application is similar to the application described by Woods J.A. at para. 12 of Sykes v. Sykes, being: ... based ... on the pragmatic decision to advance an alternative argument which could easily have been advanced at the time of the original trial. ...” I am in complete agreement with Wood J.A.’s analysis: This is not a proper basis upon which to exercise the discretion to re-open. (at para. 12)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.