What is the standard of review for admitting fresh evidence in an appeal?

Turning to the question of whether to admit the fresh evidence sought to be introduced by the appellant in Scott, Ryan J.A. noted (at para. 21) that the standard of review reflects the fact that: … the nature of an appeal is to examine the record and determine whether there has been an error of law or a palpable error of fact: it is not a continuation of a trial at a different stage. Thus, generally speaking, the need for certainty and finality leaves no room for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal: Bradbury v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1989), 42 B.C.L.R. (2d) 397 (B.C.C.A.) at 399.

Of particular relevance to this appeal is the distinction Ryan J.A. drew between “fresh” evidence and "new" evidence that became available subsequent to trial. As she explained, fresh evidence is evidence that existed at the time of the trial, but for various reasons could not be put before the court: see Struck v. Struck, 2003 BCCA 623 at para. 37, (2003), 20 B.C.L.R. (4th) 242.