The appellants were convicted of driving an unsafe commercial vehicle after a roadside inspection revealed defective brakes.
On appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice, they sought to introduce fresh expert evidence regarding the brake measurements, which was rejected based on the Palmer test for fresh evidence.
The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the strict due diligence requirement of Palmer should not apply to Provincial Offences Act (POA) appeals.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Palmer principles, including due diligence, govern the exercise of discretion to receive fresh evidence under s. 117(1) of the POA.
