The Plaintiff, Mr. Warford, and the Defendant, Ms. Mayugba, were adult interdependent partners who separated. They were directed to resolve their family property division dispute through a Streamlined Trial. After both parties closed their cases, Ms. Mayugba applied to re-open the case, arguing the Procedural Order was too restrictive and that new, credibility-related information arose during the late pre-trial Questioning. She claimed that she needed additional time for cross-examination and to introduce new evidence. Mr. Warford opposed this, emphasizing that re-opening a case is an "extraordinary step" that works against the finality of disputes.

The Court first situated the Application within the Streamlined Trial framework. Streamlined Trials pursuant to Rules 8.25 and 8.31 are considered full trials on the merits and are appropriate even if credibility is an issue or if cross-examination is needed.

The Court then articulated the test for reopening after the close of evidence but before Judgment. A Trial Judge must exercise discretion judicially when asked to reopen a case, guided by whether the interests of justice require the new material, with attention to three factors: 1) availability of the evidence prior to Trial, 2) purpose for which the evidence is sought, and 3) whether the evidence would alter the judgment. Justice Jerke added Rule 1.2(1)-(2) to this list which in essence stipulates that claims are to be resolved fairly, justly, timely, and cost-effectively.

Applying these principles, the Court held that it was in the interests of justice to allow Ms. Mayugba to partially re-open her case because the Application addressed evidence directly related to Mr. Warford's credibility, a significant issue. In the interests of justice, the Court allowed a narrow reopening. Justice Jerke permitted Ms. Mayugba to adduce an Affidavit authenticating and exhibiting specified portions of an audio recording and screenshots from a video, and to conduct an additional 20 minutes of in-court cross-examination of Mr. Warford.

Jerke J. found that Ms. Mayugba could have avoided this Application if she paid closer attention to preparation, which violated the principle of promoting timely and affordable access to justice. The Court ordered Ms. Mayugba to pay Mr. Warford’s Costs of the Application, the briefs, and one half day of Trial time, payable after Trial in any event.