“This Court has an inherent jurisdiction to set aside or change an order to prevent a miscarriage of justice: Neathery v. Cottle, 2012 ONSC 3403. This is consistent with the primary objective of the Family Law Rules – to enable the Court to deal with cases justly.
It seems to me that the test to re-open this motion should be the same as the test to re-open a trial. First, would the evidence, if presented at the motion, probably have changed the result? Second, could the evidence have been obtained before the motion by the exercise of reasonable diligence?: 671122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59 (CanLII), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 983.”