Does Scarth J. give reasons for judgment on damages for breach of contract?

Scarth J. gave reasons for judgment on June 12, 1998. While it is true that he retained jurisdiction until the final order was entered, that does not mean he could have considered an alternative cause of action after pronouncing judgment on the damages for breach of contract. In Cheema v. Cheema, 2001 BCSC 298, 89 B.C.L.R. (3d) 179 at para. 25 [Cheema], this court said: A trial judge may properly elect to exercise his or her unfettered discretion to re-open a case before a judgment has been entered and where no fresh evidence application is made, where material evidence was overlooked or misconstrued, there was a misapplication of the law, or to clarify ambiguous language. Additionally, non-entered judgments have been re-opened where there has been a change in circumstances such that the original order would not have been made had those circumstances been present. However, where the applicant is merely advancing an alternative argument that could have been made at the time of the original trial, this is not a proper basis upon which to reopen. [emphasis added]