[2011] 2 F.C.R. D-17
PRACTICE
Evidence
Motion to reopen trial to admit new evidence in context of patent infringement action after arguments presented but before reasons issued—Plaintiffs’ counsel notifying Federal Court of discovery of file affecting recollection of events of plaintiffs’ key witness who previously testified—Plaintiffs resisting motion primarily on matter of defendants’ lack of due diligence in securing evidence at issue, lack of relevance thereof—Paucity of law on issue of reopening trial after argument but before judgment entered or reasons given—Despite lacuna, law on reopening trial after reasons have been issued providing guidance to considerations which Federal Court must give in specifics of present case—While discretion to reopen matter broad, Supreme Court of Canada in 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc. setting out two-part test court must apply—Test whether evidence, if presented at trial, would have changed result; whether evidence could have been obtained before trial by exercising due diligence—Sagaz not strictly applicable herein because that decision dealing with motion to reopen after judgment had been rendered (unlike present case)—When all various factors, tests, considerations taken together, importance of integrity of trial process (search for truth through evidence) constituting overarching consideration—To some extent, that consideration addressed in issue of whether court would be misled—In present case, since no result to change, relevant question whether new evidence could influence result, whether evidence relevant—No significant prejudice to reopening trial identified herein—Motion granted.
Varco Canada Limited v. Pason Systems Corp. (T-436-05, 2011 FC 467, Phelan J., judgment dated April 15, 2011, 12 pp.)