CHRISTENSEN & POWELL

In *Christensen & Powell*, heard by Gill J, the Respondent Husband sought to reopen proceedings to adduce further evidence concerning the value of a recreational vehicle and a property he formerly owned.

The central legal issue before the court was whether to permit the Respondent Husband to reopen the proceedings to present this additional evidence.

Gill J refused the application to reopen the proceedings. The court applied the principles governing the reopening of proceedings, which generally require a compelling reason for the evidence not to have been presented earlier and for the evidence to be likely to have a significant impact on the outcome. The decision indicates that the threshold for reopening proceedings was not met in this instance.