What is the test for admitting new evidence at trial?

[12] SLMsoft involved motions for leave to appeal a mareva injunction order and to adduce new evidence. Both motions were dismissed. Epstein J., as she then was, spoke of the “interests of justice” in admitting fresh evidence (para.s 33-38) and then addressed the test set out in R v. Palmer, 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 (S.C.C.), namely: i) the evidence should generally not be admitted if, by due diligence, it could have been adduced at the trial (or motion); ii) the evidence must be relevant in the sense that it bears upon a decision or potentially decisive issue in the trial (or motion); iii) the evidence must be credible in the sense that it is reasonably capable of belief, and iv) it must be such that if believed it could reasonably, when taken with the other evidence adduced at the trial (or motion), be expected to have affected the result.