“Evidence about the circumstances prevailing since the date of an order under appeal is not, strictly speaking, “fresh evidence” that would meet the test for admission under R. v. Palmer, 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759, at p. 775, or Sengmueller v. Sengmueller (1994), 1994 CanLII 8711 (ON CA), 17 O.R. (3d) 208 (C.A.). As Benotto J.A. observed in Goldman v. Kudelya, 2017 ONCA 300, the Palmer criteria are more flexible where an appeal involves the best interests of a child, in order to provide the court with current information about the condition, means, needs, circumstances and well‑being of the child. However, she cautioned that “[t]he more flexible approach to the Palmer test in custody matters is not an opportunity for parents to continue an affidavit war”: at para. 28.”