What is the burden and standard of proof of a plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident claim?

[166] At paragraph 8 the learned judge states, as follows [citing from Kolesnykov v. ICBC2004 BCSC 173 (CanLII), [2004] BCJ No. 202]: In summary the following legal principles apply when considering the burden and standard of proof. They are set out in a two-part test. PART I – INITIAL BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE CLAIMANT Has the claimant proven a loss falling within the coverage alleged? ♣ A simple assertion under oath or affirmation that the vehicle is taken without the claimant’s consent is sufficient to prove that the claim comes within the coverage. ♣ The claimant does not have to prove that he or she did not participate in the loss. If the answer is no, the claim must be dismissed. If the answer is yes and [I.C.B.C.] has raised the question of the complicity of the claimant in the loss, Part II must be considered. PART II – BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF ON [I.C.B.C.] Has [I.C.B.C.] met the legal burden of proof upon it to prove intentional conduct on the part of the claimant amounting to fraud on a balance of probabilities by presenting clear and cogent evidence of the fraud? The Burden of Proof ♣ When [I.C.B.C.] alleges that a claimant participated in or procured the theft, that is an allegation of fraud and places the burden of proof on [I.C.B.C.]. ♣ The burden on [I.C.B.C.] is a legal, not an evidentiary burden. That legal burden remains on [I.C.B.C.] and does not shift to the claimant. ♣ It is an error of law to conclude that at the end of the case the claimant has the burden of proving that the loss occurred without the claimant’s involvement. The Standard of Proof ♣ The standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities: Is the allegation of fraud more likely than not? ♣ Within that standard of proof there are different degrees of proof that may be required. ♣ Fraud is a quasi-criminal allegation and a finding of fraud could affect the claimant’s life well beyond the outcome of the insurance claim. The trial judge, when scrutinising the evidence, must keep in mind that substantially more than a mere tilting of the evidentiary scales is required. The quality of the evidence must be assessed taking into account the degree of proof required. The scrutiny is heightened in the sense that the judge must determine whether the evidence is clear and cogent enough to more than just tilt the scales. The more serious the allegation and its consequences, the greater the degree of proof required. And: