The Applicant sought Judgment pursuant to s. 84(1) of the Civil Enforcement Act, RSA 2000, c C-15, against garnishees who, initially, did not respond to a Garnishee Summons, and later, responded but did not pay funds into Court. After the Hearing of that Application, a Respondent Garnishee sought leave to provide an additional Affidavit. This Decision considered both the Applicant’s Application for Judgment and the Respondent’s Application to admit additional evidence.

Justice Armstrong noted that Rule 9.13 permits the Court to hear more evidence and change or modify its Judgment, Order, or Reasons anytime before a Judgment or Order is entered. His Lordship observed that, in this case, the Application to adduce additional evidence was brought after the hearing of the matter, but before any Decision had been rendered. As such, the test for re-opening a case or for adducing fresh evidence on Appeal did not apply here.

Rather, per Armstrong J., the test under Rule 9.13 is simply whether the Court is satisfied that there is good reason to allow additional evidence. In this case, the Court held that there was good reason because: (1) the timelines leading up to the hearing were unusually tight; (2) the late submission caused no unfairness to the Applicant, who was aware of the information contained therein for several months prior; and (3) the additional evidence was helpful to the Court.

With respect to the Application under the Civil Enforcement Act, the Court awarded Judgment and Solicitor-Client Costs in favour of the Applicant, due to the Respondents’ blatant disregard for the authority of the Civil Enforcement Act and the Court.

Justice Armstrong also invoked Rule 9.4(2)(c), which allowed the Applicant to submit the Order directly to the Court without seeking approval from counsel for the Respondents.