Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
Anyone else who does more litigation than I do please feel free to correct me, but I don't think this is a viable strategy (presuming some broad similarities between US and Canadian law). Absent some extraordinary circumstance, in any appellate proceedings, Trump will be restricted to the evidence adduced and the issues/arguments made in the court below (only now with the additional onus of demonstrating some incorrectness, unreasonableness, or palpable and overriding error in the judgement of the court below). They have no choice but to put their best foot forward in the court of first instance.
|
I'm not an American lawyer either, but even here this isn't
quite true. There's certainly plenty of latitude for making new and different legal arguments, and fresh evidence can be adduced with leave, particularly in circumstances where it wasn't available when the matter was heard at first instance. So while this is true as a general rule, there are avenues.
The question is likely whether these courts want to slam the door shut or allow every possible argument to be heard and every possible bit of extra evidence to be adduced before throwing out the claims, to eliminate grounds for review if things do proceed to the SCOTUS. That judicial tactic certainly isn't restricted to Canadian courts, by any means.