Can a new hearing be commenced with new evidence?

Counsel for Thailand is correct when he says that a new hearing can be commenced with the new evidence. La Forest J. in Argentina v. Mellino (1987), 33 C.C.C. (3d) 334 (S.C.C.) at p. 348 said the following: Since a discharge at an extradition hearing for lack of evidence, like that at a preliminary hearing, is not final, it has long been recognized that new proceedings may be instituted on new, or even on the same evidence before the judge at the original hearing or another judge. Case law supports Thailand's position. In a similar case Mr. Justice Hardinge, in the matter of the Extradition Act v. Dhaliwal (20 November 1991), (B.C.S.C.) [unreported], ruled certain evidence inadmissible because of certain defects. The case was then adjourned and the requesting state sought to re-tender the evidence once the defects had been cured. Hardinge J. ruled that the evidence was admissible.