There is a common misconception that once a trial is over, that is it, and the decision of the Court is final. In fact, before the Order of the Court detailing their ruling is formally entered, the trial judge does have discretion to re-open a trial in light of new evidence. The party seeking to re-open the trial must show that a miscarriage of justice would likely occur should the trial not be re-opened, and that the new evidence sought to be adduced would likely change the result.
In Kostecki v. Li, the Plaintiff was injured in a rear end collision, and consequently brought an ICBC claim for damages for pain and suffering, as well as other types of damages. Liability was admitted by ICBC’S lawyer. At issue was how long her acute symptoms persisted, and the extent to which her chronic symptoms still persisted. After the conclusion of the trial, ICBC’S lawyer made an application to reopen the trial in order to prove that the Plaintiff made oral statements to a neurologist and a physiotherapist which were inconsistent with certain aspects of the Plaintiff‘s direct evidence in regards to the seriousness and persistence of her ongoing chronic symptoms. The Court allowed the application, commenting that:
 In this regard, as in this case, when it is the defendant who applies to reopen and the plaintiff has not called reply evidence, the additional defence evidence can simply be considered as a continuation of the defence case and is even less prejudicial than when a plaintiff seeks to reopen: Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2011 BCSC 1536, at para. 34.
 In my view, prejudice to the plaintiff here is minimal or non‑existent. What she loses is the purely tactical benefit of a slip-up by opposing counsel. We obviously work in an adversarial system and hard knocks are inevitable, but my having to decide the critical issue of credibility with a piece of evidence that may be highly relevant to that assessment sitting on the sidelines only because of counsel error is indeed the stuff of which miscarriages of justice are made.
 Accordingly, the application is allowed with respect to the evidence of Dr. Beckman only. His evidence in the reopening will be restricted to proof of those portions of his letter that were put to Ms. Grace. That obviously includes evidence going to the accuracy of what he has recorded, including his note‑taking and report‑writing practices.