R v Anderson, 2018 ONSC 5720 (Penny):

[18] Wagner J. wrote in St-Cloud at paragraph 131:
…that a generous and liberal interpretation of the meaning of new evidence in the context of section 520 and 521 of the Criminal Code is thus quite consistent with the principles developed by this
court.

[19] He went on to say the due diligence requirement in Palmer “…must be adapted to the context of bail review. A reviewing judge may consider evidence that existed at the time of the first hearing but was not tendered as long as the reason is legitimate and reasonable”.

[20] Justice Wagner specifically contemplated that given the expedited and compressed time frames in which bail applications are heard, material, although technically available, may not have been located, processed or understood in sufficient time or with sufficient clarity to introduce it at the hearing.

[21] Mr. Anderson was arrested on May 28th, 2018. The evidentiary portion of the bail hearing took place on June 14th, some 17 days following arrest. The Crown was given no prior notice of who the proposed surety was going to be or what the terms of a plan of supervision might be. It was of course the defendant’s right not to provide advance notice of that information, but given the language of the Supreme Court of Canada on this criterion, it should hardly be surprising if, once that information is known, the Crown may engage in further investigation and seek to rely on new evidence in subsequent proceedings.

[22] I am satisfied that although the new evidence clearly existed at the time of the bail hearing, the expeditious nature of the proceedings combined with the fact that the importance of the information now sought to be introduced would not necessarily have been entirely appreciated or known before the hearing began, is sufficient legitimate and reasonable explanation for why the information was not produced at the first hearing.