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


The following excerpt is from Uppal Building Supplies Ltd. v Diamond Star Insulation Ltd., 2019 BCSC 545 (CanLII):

The issue on judicial review was whether the adjudicator addressed 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. The chambers judge concluded that the adjudicator’s decision was unreasonable within the meaning of Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 because it was neither transparent nor intelligible. Specifically, the chambers judge held that it was not possible to discern from the reasons why factual issues central to the outcome of the review – the most important of which was whether the officer detected alcohol on the respondent’s breath – were resolved against the respondent. The Superintendent takes issue with aspects of the analytical approach taken by the chambers judge and with his conclusion that the decision was unreasonable.

Other Questions


Will the adjudicator's decision not to address conflicting evidence central to the outcome of a review be unreasonable? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the applicable standard of review for an officer to determine whether or not they err by giving more weight to a statement by the Canadian migratory integrity officer in Port-au-Prince than the other documents submitted in evidence? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
What is the test for reasonableness in a judicial review of an adjudicator's determination whether or not an infraction of a Township bylaw has occurred? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the impact of the respondent’s position that the adjudicator must consider all the relevant evidence before making a credibility finding? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have courts dealt with conflicting evidence in a civil matter? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the fact that a driver provides evidence capable of refuting the blood alcohol concentration test results do not mean that the adjudicator is unable to decide? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the impact of an officer's assessment of central evidence at an oral hearing? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
What is the appropriate standard upon which to review whether the Officer erred in her treatment of evidence? (Canada (Federal), Canada)
Is the adjudicator entitled to make findings of fact on conflicting evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
How has the adjudicator considered the evidence of the petitioner’s drinking pattern and found that a second sample was taken 15 minutes after the petitioner said he had last consumed alcohol? (British Columbia, Canada)