What is the test for an application to admit new evidence after a decision has been rendered?

This prohibition applies equally after a case has closed. There should be a point where the litigation is completed. The manner in which due diligence is evaluated by a trial judge may be influenced by the timing of the application. In this regard, I am cognizant that after a decision has been rendered, the losing party has an opportunity to reflect on what it ought to have done at the trial to strengthen its case and may therefore after the fact seek evidence to shore up that case. Courts must scrutinize any application to admit fresh evidence for this abusive ‘tactical’ approach to litigation: Alberta v. B.M., at para. 33.

Further, decisions may lead to reliance, and there is the possibility of real potential prejudice to a successful party where it unexpectedly finds a matter re-opened. As was made explicit in Alberta v. B.M., the necessary threshold for due diligence is that evidence could not have been obtained at an earlier point. If an applicant cannot explain its delay to the point in time at which a fresh evidence application is made, then that failure will likely mean the due diligence requirement was not satisfied. C. Fresh evidence proposed in this case