The learned judge dismissed the application [[1992] B.C.W.L.D. 217], saying [p. 2]: The test which must be met in order to re-open a matter after pronouncement of judgment but before entry of the order is two-fold. An application of this nature should only be granted where the additional evidence sought to be introduced could not have been obtained by reasonable diligence before the trial and is such that, if introduced, would be practically conclusive (Varette v. Sainsbury, 1927 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1928] S.C.R. 72, [1928] 1 D.L.R. 273). I find on the evidence before me that the defendant has not met the burden of the first branch of this test and, even if I am wrong, she would similarly fail on the second branch.
"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.