The provision in proposed subsection 110(4) provides for three different scenarios in which evidence can be presented to the refugee appeal division that was not presented to the refugee protection division.
The first, of course, is evidence that arose only after the rejection of their claim. So if a person becomes aware of events in their country only after the claim has been heard, no problem; they can present that evidence.
If it's evidence that was not reasonably available--if the person did not know about the event that happened in his country because he'd been out of the country for many years--then, again, there's the opportunity to bring that evidence forward.
And the third is the scenario that I think you've been alluding to, which is evidence that the person could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presented. That's a judgment call by the refugee appeal division. The person can make their case to the refugee appeal division member as to why it was not reasonable in the circumstances for them to have presented the particular evidence.