What is the test for "compelling" evidence on appeal?

He concluded his analysis as follows (at paras 49-52): 49 It is equally clear to me that to be "compelling", the evidence offered on appeal must do more than simply meet the conditions precedent to the admissibility of that evidence. Evidence offered on appeal to challenge factual findings at trial is inadmissible unless it is relevant to a material issue, reasonably capable of belief and sufficiently cogent that it could reasonably be expected to have affected the result at trial when considered in combination with the rest of the evidence: Palmer and Palmer v. The Queen, supra, at 205. In short, if the evidence is not sufficiently strong to compel the ordering of a new trial, it cannot be received on appeal. 50 If the evidence could have been led at trial, but for tactical reasons it was not, some added degree of cogency is necessary before the admission of the evidence on appeal can be said to be in the interests of justice. Otherwise, the due diligence consideration would become irrelevant. An accused who did not testify at trial could secure a new trial by advancing an explanation on appeal that was reasonably capable of belief. It would not serve the interests of justice to routinely order new trials to give an accused an opportunity to reconsider his or her decision not to testify at the initial trial. 51 Exactly where on the continuum between evidence that is sufficiently probative to meet the preconditions to the admissibility of evidence on appeal and evidence that is so probative as to warrant an acquittal, evidence will become "compelling" must depend on the totality of the circumstances. Where the proffered evidence was not led at trial because of a calculated decision made by an accused, the integrity of the criminal justice system will suffer if the evidence is received on appeal and a new trial is ordered. That harm can only be justified if the proffered evidence gives strong reason to doubt the factual accuracy of the verdict. 52 The court of appeal must weigh the evidence to decide whether it is sufficiently cogent to merit admission despite its availability at trial.