does not dispute that the evidence is credible, but says that it
could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result of
trial if admitted with the rest of the evidence given there. And its
availability there with the exercise of due diligence renders it contrary to “the interests of justice” to receive it here.
The governing principles
 The principles governing the reception of fresh evidence
on appeal are uncontroversial and in no need of elaborate recita-
tion or discussion. They are expressed in “the interests of justice”
standard in s. 683( 1) of the Criminal Code and described in the
decision in R. v. Palmer,  1 S.C.R. 759,  S.C.J. No.
126, at p. 775 S.C.R.
 The Palmer criteria involve three requirements:
( i) admissibility;
( ii) cogency; and
( iii) due diligence.
See Truscott (Re),  O.J. No. 3221, 2007 ONCA 575, 225 C.C.C.
(3d) 321, at para. 92.
 The precondition that the material tendered for admission on appeal must be admissible under the operative rules of
evidence permits the reception of fresh evidence for impeachment
purposes, as for example, to undermine the basis for findings of
fact made at trial: Truscott, at paras. 96, 98.
 The cogency requirement involves a qualitative assessment of the evidence tendered for reception on appeal. The evidence must be relevant in that it bears upon a decisive or
potentially decisive issue at trial. It must be credible in that it is
reasonably capable of belief. And it must be sufficiently probative
that, when taken with the other evidence adduced at trial, it
could reasonably be expected to have affected the verdict rendered at trial. Provided the fresh evidence considered in this context could reasonably be expected to have affected the result at
trial, it is sufficiently cogent to justify its admission on appeal,
subject to a consideration of the failure to lead that evidence at
trial: Truscott, at paras. 99-100.
 The admissibility and cogency requirements are directed
to the admissibility of the fresh evidence under s. 683( 1). Not so
the due diligence requirement, which is not a precondition to
admissibility. Due diligence enters the analysis only if the
proposed evidence satisfies the first two preconditions to admissibility — admissibility under the adjective law and cogency. The
explanation offered for the failure to adduce the proposed