The respondents say that the judge did not err in granting the no-evidence motion in the absence of any evidence as to the standard of care. As for the fresh evidence application, the respondents say the evidence does not meet the test for admissibility of such evidence as set out in Palmer v. The Queen, 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759.
"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.