In Watson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2002 BCSC 947, 31 M.V.R. (4th) 112, Goepel J. held, at para. 11: I agree with Justice Macaulay’s conclusion [in Hart]. It follows, therefore, if the report in this case was in fact unsworn, the Adjudicator should not have considered its contents. I believe, however, that this case is distinguishable from Hart. In Hart there was no evidence that the officer attended before a Commissioner to swear to the truth of the contents of the report. That is not the situation in the case at bar where it is clear that the officer did attend before a Commissioner. The only deficiency in the report is the failure of the Commissioner to indicate whether the report was sworn or solemnly affirmed [emphasis added].
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.