|
Federal Court - Fresh Evidence. Mackie v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference
In Mackie v. Teamsters Canada Rail Conference (Fed CA, 2022) the Federal Court of Appeal considered a fresh evidence argument by the applicant, though in the context of the respondent's motion to dismiss portions of a filed affidavit in a JR case [SS: Keeprite]:[6] For his part, the applicant acknowledges that some portions of his evidence were not before the CIRB when it rendered its impugned decision, but he argues that such evidence should nevertheless not be struck. The gist of his argument is that the evidence in question is relevant to the issues in dispute and should be considered. He cites the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Palmer v. The Queen, 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 at page 775, 106 D.L.R. (3d) 212 (Palmer), to support his argument that additional evidence may be admitted based on the following principles:(1) The evidence should generally not be admitted if, by due diligence, it could have been adduced at trial provided that this general principle will not be applied as strictly in a criminal case as in civil cases: see McMartin v. The Queen [1964 CanLII 43 (SCC), [1964] S.C.R. 484, 46 D.L.R. (2d) 372].
(2) The evidence must be relevant in the sense that it bears upon a decisive or potentially decisive issue in the trial.
(3) The evidence must be credible in the sense that it is reasonably capable of belief, and
(4) It must be such that if believed it could reasonably, when taken with the other evi-dence adduced at trial, be expected to have affected the result. [7] It is important to note, however, that Palmer concerned an appeal of criminal convictions under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Palmer does not apply in the circumstances of the present judicial review. Also, the provision in issue in Palmer specifically contemplated new evidence. In the present case, Parliament has assigned to the CIRB the task of assessing the merits of the applicant’s DFR complaint. It is not the role of this Court on judicial review to redo that work. Moreover, there is no provision in the legislation applicable in this case for the introduction of new evidence.
[8] The same distinction applies in respect of the applicant’s reliance on the decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Sengmueller v. Sengmueller, 1994 CanLII 8711, [1994] O.J. No. 276 (Q.L.). That decision admitted new evidence on the basis of fairness, but in the context of an appeal, not a judicial review. Again, the legislation explicitly contemplated the introduction of new evidence. . Sibbald v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Sibbald v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2022) the Federal Court of Appeal held that the fresh evidence admissibility rules that applied to a federal judicial review of the Social Security Tribunal (Appeal Division), apply to the tribunal proceeding as well:[35] At paragraph 13 of Gittens v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 256, 311 A.C.W.S. (3d) 211, this Court has held that "“hearings before the Appeal Division are not redos based on updated evidence of the hearings before the General Division. They are instead reviews of General Division decisions based on the same evidence”".
[36] The general rule regarding the admissibility of evidence on judicial review was explained by this Court at paragraph 19 of Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22, 428 NR 297 [Access Copyright] which reads as follows:... the evidentiary record before this Court on judicial review is restricted to the evidentiary record that was before the Board. In other words, evidence that was not before the Board and that goes to the merits of the matter before the Board is not admissible in an application for judicial review in this Court. [37] In Access Copyright, this Court enumerated three, potentially non-exhaustive, exceptions to the general rule: (1) general background information, (2) to bring procedural defects to the attention of the court, and (3) to highlight the complete absence of evidence. The Court also highlighted that these exceptions "“exist only in situations where the receipt of evidence by this Court is not inconsistent with the differing roles of the judicial review court and the administrative decision-maker”" (Access Copyright at para. 20).
[38] Access Copyright was relied upon in Sharma v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 48, 288 A.C.W.S. (3d) 790 at paragraph 9 [Sharma]. However, in Sharma, the question was whether this Court, not whether the Appeal Division, should consider new evidence.
[39] When determining whether fresh evidence should be admitted before it, the Appeal Division should be guided by the same principles enumerated in Access Copyright. The Appeal Division is not the fact-finder. That is the role of the General Division. There may be circumstances when the Appeal Division would allow fresh evidence, if it assists in providing background information or, perhaps exceptionally, in cases where both parties have agreed that an important document should be considered. Determinations of this nature are case-specific and should be left to the Appeal Division.
[40] These principles are not new to the Appeal Division. I am aware of the Appeal Division having recently applied these principles to new evidence (see, for example, RK v. Canada Employment Insurance Commission, 2020 SST 1024; KD v. Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2020 SST 631 and HZ v. Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2020 SST 550).
[41] In the review before us, Mr. Sibbald does not agree that the Order should have been admitted and considered by the Appeal Division. He says that he was not allowed the opportunity to provide further evidence regarding the Order, the parenting arrangements and child support arrangements. He also argues that the new evidence does not provide general background information. Accordingly, he submits that allowing this fresh evidence was unfair and prejudicial to his position. I agree.
[42] The Order provided to the Appeal Division does not fall under the general background information exception and therefore should not have been admitted as evidence. . Iris Technologies Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue)
In Iris Technologies Inc. v. Canada (National Revenue) (Fed CA, 2020) the Federal Court of Appeal set out the criteria for fresh evidence on appeal:[27] The legal principles governing the admission of fresh evidence on appeal are not in dispute. A party seeking to adduce fresh evidence must establish that the evidence could not have been adduced at trial with the exercise of due diligence; is relevant in that it bears on a decisive or potentially decisive issue on appeal; is credible in the sense that it is reasonably capable of belief; and, if believed, could reasonably have affected the result in the court below (Palmer v. The Queen (1979), 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 at 775, 106 D.L.R. (3d) 212; Coady v. Canada (Royal Mounted Police), 2019 FCA 102 at para. 3).
[28] Each of the four criteria must be met. If they are not met, the Court has residual discretion to admit the evidence, but it is a discretion to be exercised sparingly—in the "“clearest of cases”" where the interests of justice so require (Coady at para. 3). . Jack v. McLean
In Jack v. McLean (Fed CA, 2020) the Federal Court of Appeal set out the test for fresh evidence in a federal appeal:[10] The principles governing the admission of fresh evidence on appeal were set out at paragraph 3 of Coady v. Canada (Royal Mounted Police), 2019 FCA 102, which provides:The test governing such requests is well-established and requires that the party seeking to adduce fresh evidence establish that the evidence: (1) could not have been adduced at trial with the exercise of due diligence; (2) is relevant in that it bears on a decisive or potentially decisive issue on appeal; (3) is credible in the sense that it is reasonably capable of belief; and (4) is such that, if believed, could reasonably have affected the result in the court below: Palmer v. The Queen, 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 at p. 775, (1979) 30 N.R. 181; May v. Ferndale Institution, 2005 SCC 82, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 809 at para. 107. This test has been regularly applied by single judges of this Court when deciding motions seeking the admission of new evidence on appeal: see Shire Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2011 FCA 10 at para. 17, 414 N.R. 270 (Shire); Brace v. Canada, 2014 FCA 92 at para. 11, 68 C.P.C. (7th) 81 (Brace). If the evidence fails to meet the foregoing criteria, the Court still possesses a residual discretion to admit the evidence on appeal. However, such discretion should be exercised sparingly and only in the “clearest of cases”, where the interests of justice so require: Shire at para. 18; Brace at para. 12 . Canada v. Pomeroy Acquireco Ltd.
In Canada v. Pomeroy Acquireco Ltd. (Fed CA, 2020) the Federal Court of Appeal considered the fresh evidence on appeal under Federal Court Rules 351:[5] Because I find it better reflects the jurisprudence that binds this Court, I prefer the definition of the legal test for adducing fresh evidence as set out in Coady v. Canada (Royal Mounted Police), 2019 FCA 102 at para. 3 (Coady):[…] The test governing such requests is well-established and requires that the party seeking to adduce fresh evidence establish that the evidence: (1) could not have been adduced at trial with the exercise of due diligence; (2) is relevant in that it bears on a decisive or potentially decisive issue on appeal; (3) is credible in the sense that it is reasonably capable of belief; and (4) is such that, if believed, could reasonably have affected the result in the court below: Palmer v. The Queen, 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 at p. 775, (1979) 30 N.R. 181; May v. Ferndale Institution, 2005 SCC 82, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 809 at para. 107. […] If the evidence fails to meet the foregoing criteria, the Court still possesses a residual discretion to admit the evidence on appeal. However, such discretion should be exercised sparingly and only in the “clearest of cases”, where the interests of justice so require[…] [6] The parties also both cite the following passage from Amchem Products Inc. v. British Columbia (Workers' Compensation Board), [1992] S.C.J. No. 110 at para. 6 (Amchem), concerning how the requirements should be applied on appeals of interlocutory matters, such as this appeal:[…] In my view, in exercising the discretionary power in respect of an application relating to an appeal from an interlocutory order, these rules should not be applied strictly. Regard must be had for the fact that there is not the same opportunity for putting forward all the material as at trial[…] . Landau v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Landau v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2021) the Federal Court of Appeal declined to admit fresh evidence that could have been admitted in a lower appeal tribunal:[11] To the extent that fresh evidence is adduced in support of the challenges against sections 2(1), 42(1), 58, 72 and 73 of the Plan, it is inadmissible in this Court because the challenges are not available in this Court. To the extent the fresh evidence is adduced in support of the challenge against paragraphs 44(1)(a) and (d) and section 46 of the Plan, it is inadmissible on the ground that, absent a recognized exception, new evidence, even on constitutional issues, is not admissible in this Court: Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22, 428 N.R. 297, citing numerous cases and applied by many more; on new evidence offered on constitutional issues, see Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v. Canada (National Energy Board), 2014 FCA 245, [2015] 4 F.C.R. 75 at paras. 40-46. The General Division and the Appeal Division are the merits-deciders under this legislative scheme and, thus, normally only they may receive evidence and consider it: see, most recently, Portnov v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 171, citing numerous cases that, in turn, cite many more.
|
