What is the test for reopening a trial?

I agree with, and adopt the comments of MacKenzie J. I would summarize the main principles applicable to such an application in the following way: • it is generally speaking in the interests of justice to consider that a trial is complete when each side has closed their case and the judge has delivered his or her judgment; • a judge’s unfettered discretion to reopen a trial should be exercised with restraint; • a party may not use the rule to re-argue, re-cast, or re-state his or her case, rather the rule is available to remedy what might otherwise be a substantial injustice; • it is not intended that a party should be able to lead substantial new evidence, nor does the rule generally permit the leading of new expert evidence; • the reasons that the evidence was not led or submissions not made in the first place may be relevant to the exercise of the judge’s discretion, particularly where the failure to do so in the first place was a considered or pragmatic decision; and • the discretion should only be exercised if the reception of the new evidence would probably change the result of the trial. I would add to this list that a judge may reasonably exercise such discretion where a relatively discreet error in math or some mechanical consideration of the evidence is clearly in error. Finally, the overarching consideration is whether it is in the interests of justice that the court reopen the case. (See also Brown v. Douglas, 2011 BCCA 521, 314 B.C.A.C. 143.)

Our Court of Appeal has provided further guidance with respect to the principles to be applied in the exercise of the court’s discretion in Hansa v Hansa 2017 BCCA 199. In Hansa Frankel J.A., for the court, cited with approval the following passage from Grewal v. Grewal, 2016 BCCA 237, 387 B.C.A.C. 265: