The Parties appealed from a Judgment arising from a family dispute. The Trial Judge had issued a written Decision and three follow-up Endorsements.

The Wife in her Cross-Appeal argued that the Trial Judge was inconsistent in his treatment of post-Trial submissions under Rule 9.13. Specifically, the Wife argued that the Trial Judge accepted certain post-Trial submissions from the Husband on one issue, but rejected her post-Trial submission in which she argued the Judge made a palpable and overriding error by not taking Judicial Notice of certain tax liabilities.

Rule 9.13 gives the Court discretion to vary a Judgment before it is entered or, if the Court is satisfied there is good reason to do so, it may hear more evidence in order to modify the Judgment or its reasons for it.

The Court held that the Trial Judge could not be faulted for refusing to take Judicial Notice of the tax liability. Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the Wife to ensure that the record before the Trial Judge adequately addressed the issue.

In turning its attention to Rule 9.13, the Court noted that the Rule must be “used sparingly.” It cautioned litigants that Rule 9.13 is not intended to be used a vehicle to “shore up evidential gaps” nor is it a “new occasion for the losing party to advance new argument which he or she simply did not think of before.” Further, the Court warned that Trial Judges who invite further submissions under Rule 9.13 and then issue subsequent Endorsements “may introduce questions around what properly forms part of the evidentiary record” and thus “open themselves up to criticism as to the proper use of post-trial submissions.”