Does admitting expert evidence after the conclusion of the proceeding before the Master change the nature of that hearing?

Admitting expert evidence after the conclusion of the proceeding before the Master, would change the very nature of significant portions of that hearing. The petitioner’s approach to examination of his own expert witness might have been different. As stated in G. (J.D.) v. G. (S.L.) and Otte v. The Government of Manitoba, there must be some finality to litigation. A self-represented litigant who is displeased with the outcome of a court proceeding cannot expect the court to reopen a previously concluded proceeding or order an entirely new hearing because she failed to provide evidence at the initial hearing that was within her control to obtain. The fact she did not like the outcome does not mean she is entitled to a fresh hearing or to introduce evidence that is not truly “new” evidence, but evidence that she was in the position to obtain and present at the original hearing, but chose not to obtain.