What is the test for relevance of evidence in the context of "relevance"?

“Relevance” is a matter of every day experience and common sense. Evidence that is not logically probative of the fact requiring proof (a fact in issue) is generally inadmissible. To be probative, the evidence must increase or decrease the probability of the truth of the asserted fact to which it is said to relate: see Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., 2011 ONSC 2504, 5 C.P.C. (7th) 112, at para. 110. Indeed, in order for evidence to be “relevant” it must have some tendency, as a matter of logic and human experience, to make the proposition for which it is advanced more likely than the proposition would be in the absence of that evidence: see R. v. J.-L.J., 2000 SCC 51, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 600, at para. 47.