What is the scope of admissible evidence when considering a claim of breach of the duty to consult?

In Pimichikamak v. Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Manitoba, 2014 MBQB 143, Joyal C.J.Q.B. confirmed the scope of admissible evidence when considering a claim of breach of the duty to consult: 58 In addition to establishing the existence of the duty, such evidence - not before the original decision maker(s) - has also been admitted in order to permit the court to determine the scope, content and ultimately, the fulfilment (or not) of the duty to consult and accommodate. ... 59 In the present case, as earlier stated, there will be no issue at the judicial review that there existed and Manitoba owed a duty to consult the applicants. The issue on the judicial review will be whether Manitoba fulfilled its duty, taking into consideration the scope and content of the duty owed and the circumstances of the consultation which would include the process of consultation. The issue on this particular preliminary evidentiary motion leading up to the judicial review, is whether the applicants can successfully invoke the exceptions and justifications that would require the issue on the judicial review to be determined based upon a record different from that which was before the original decision maker(s) prior to the Agreement.