What is the test to be met when seeking to admit new evidence in a civil case?

The test to be met when seeking to have fresh evidence admitted, when such evidence could render unreliable one of the findings of fact material to the verdict, is well established. It was set out by McIntyre J. in Palmer et al. v. The Queen, 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759 (at p. 775): (1) The evidence should generally not be admitted if, by due diligence, it could have been adduced at trial provided that this general principle will not be applied as strictly in a criminal case as in civil cases: see McMartin v. The Queen, [1964 CanLII 43 (SCC), [1964] S.C.R. 484]. (2) The evidence must be relevant in the sense that it bears upon a decisive or potentially decisive issue in the trial. (3) The evidence must be credible in the sense that it is reasonably capable of belief, and (4) It must be such that if believed it could reasonably, when taken with the other evidence adduced at trial, be expected to have affected the result.