How has the adjudicator adjudicated that a jurat has not been completed properly, and that a report was not properly sworn as a result of the Commissioner writing his name on the wrong line?

In his reasons, the adjudicator addressed with the petitioner’s argument that the jurat had not been completed properly, and the Report had not been properly sworn as a result of the commissioner writing his name on the wrong line. The adjudicator relied on Johnston v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicle), 2007 BCSC 1044, in finding that substance, not form, governs the admission of official documents in an administrative review, and that if a jurat is only defective, incomplete or unclear a Report is still properly received.