The factors to be considered in exercising the discretion to receive fresh evidence have been set out in a long line of cases, most notably the often cited Palmer v. The Queen, 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759, at p. 775. Recently, this court, in R. v. Snyder, 2011 ONCA 4561, identified three questions as relevant in deciding whether to exercise the discretion: 1. Is the evidence admissible under the operative rules of evidence? 2. Is the evidence sufficiently cogent that it could reasonably be expected to have affected the verdict? 3. What is the explanation offered for the failure to adduce the evidence at trial and should that explanation affect the admissibility of the evidence?
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.