What is the current state of the law in relation to the two-part test of the Sagaz Test?

Subsequent to Sagaz, there has been some dispute in regard to the due diligence branch of the test. In Virani v. Dhami, 2002 BCSC 662, Chamberlist J. applied the two-part test, as did Burnyeat J. in Canada Trust Company v. Renard, 2007 BCSC 523. In K.F.P. v. D.J.P. , 2004 BCSC 466, Wedge J. suggested that Sagaz did not bind a trial judge because that approach had been rejected by our Court of Appeal in Clayton. She concluded that Sagaz endorsed the approach that a trial judge had a broad discretion to determine whether, at the expense of finality, fairness dictated that the new evidence be heard. She concluded that even though the new evidence might have changed the result, fairness did not dictate that the new evidence be heard at the expense of finality and refused to admit the new evidence because of lack of diligence.