“Section 121(6) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (the “CYFSA”) permits a court hearing an appeal in a child protection case to receive further evidence relating to events after the decision under appeal. In Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 517, at para. 4, the Supreme Court held that “[i]n cases where the best interests of the child are the primary concern, the Palmer test is sufficiently flexible to recognize that it may be in the interests of justice for a court to have more context before rendering decisions that could profoundly alter the course of a child’s life.” The Palmer test directs the court to consider whether: (i) the evidence could not, by the exercise of due diligence, have been obtained for the trial; (ii) the evidence is relevant in that it bears upon a decisive or potentially decisive issue; (iii) the evidence is credible in the sense that it is reasonably capable of belief; and (iv) the evidence is such that, if believed, it could have affected the result at trial: Barendregt, at para. 29.”
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.E., 2025 ONCA 623 (CanLII) at 9