[9] It appears that there is no jurisdiction to admit fresh evidence on a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court: see SLMsoft.com Inc. v. Rampart Securities (Trustee of) (2005), 2005 CanLII 41549 (ON SCDC), 78 O.R. (3d) 521 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 16-39.
[10] Regardless, I would decline to do so because I find that the four-part test for admission of fresh evidence as set out in Palmer v. The Queen has not been met: 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759, at p. 775. While I accept that the evidence could not have been obtained previously by the exercise of due diligence and that the evidence is credible, I am not convinced that the evidence is relevant or would have impacted the decision of the Board. The motion to admit fresh evidence is dismissed.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
