What is the test for establishing that the evidence presented at trial was reasonable diligence?

New Brunswick, Canada


The following excerpt is from Adams v. Borrel, 2009 NBQB 186 (CanLII):

In Scott v. Cook the test is simply: (1) if presented at trial would the evidence change the result; and (2) could the evidence have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the trial?

In Ladd v. Marshall the test is: (1) it must be shown the evidence could not have been obtained by due diligence; (2) would the evidence have an important influence on the trial; and (3) the evidence must be credible, although not incontrovertible.

Other Questions


Can an appellate court "reconsider" evidence presented at trial when there is a reasoned belief that the trial judge must have forgotten or misconceived the evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard for a trial judge to accept all the evidence presented to the court? (Saskatchewan, Canada)
Is reasonable diligence a bar to re-opening a trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can new evidence be said to be adduced with reasonable diligence? (Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada)
What is the test for reasonable grounds for establishing that reasonable grounds are reasonable grounds? (Ontario, Canada)
What is a reasonable time for an offer to be made at trial if an offer is not made within a specific time from the start of trial? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test on an application to adduce fresh evidence that existed at the time of trial but was not placed before the trial court? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a party who has not produced evidence in favour of their position, or has no reasonable explanation for failing to call the evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
How has the trial judge reviewed the evidence at a jury trial? (Ontario, Canada)
Is it reasonable for two counsels to stand trial on an undefended trial over two days? (Ontario, Canada)