Is the adjudicator entitled to make findings of fact on conflicting evidence?

British Columbia, Canada

The following excerpt is from Scott v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2013 BCSC 676 (CanLII):

Although this particular type of review is based on affidavits, the adjudicator is entitled to make findings of fact on conflicting evidence, including findings of credibility: Nagra v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2010 BCCA 154. In doing so, the adjudicator should give no presumptive preference to the report of the investigating police officer over the applicant's affidavit: Spencer v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2011 BCSC 1311.

Other Questions

How can an adjudicator make findings of fact and credibility issues on conflicting evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
In what circumstances will a adjudicator's reasoning be manifestly flawed where the adjudicator failed to consider the evidence supporting the findings of two witnesses? (British Columbia, Canada)
How has the adjudicator dealt with conflicting evidence central to the determination of whether the officer honestly suspected the respondent had alcohol in his body at the time of the stop? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are some cases that call for multiple findings of fact on the basis of conflicting evidence? (Ontario, Canada)
Will the adjudicator's decision not to address conflicting evidence central to the outcome of a review be unreasonable? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is it appropriate to re-open a hearing to receive oral evidence in cases of conflicting evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is conflicting evidence a bar to proceeding summarily? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a preliminary inquiry judge entitled to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Criminal Code? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to medical malpractice compensation even without objective evidence from her doctor? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the Adjudicator's failure to consider video evidence deprive the petitioner of his right to make full answer and defence as guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? (British Columbia, Canada)