What is the legal test to apply on this review?

Even though the parties have agreed on the legal test to be applied on this review, it is useful to revisit some of the other legal principles that are applicable. These are all helpfully contained in the decision of Mr. Justice Wong in Johnson v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) (2002), 98 B.C.L.R. (3d), 2002 BCSC 89: 1. The task of the Adjudicator is to review the evidence and information, and be satisfied as to which of the two conditions was present at the time the applicant had care or control of the vehicle. 2. The burden under the Legislation is a civil burden. To confirm the prohibition the Adjudicator must be satisfied that it is more probable than not that the individual’s circumstance was within s. 94.6(1)(a) or (b). 3. The role of the court on judicial review must be distinguished from that on appeal. On judicial review it is not within the power of the court to examine the appropriateness of the decision and substitute its view for that of the tribunal. Rather, on judicial review the role of the court is supervisory. 4. If the ground of review relates to a finding made from the facts, or an inference drawn from the facts, then the court can only intervene where the finding or inference is “patently unreasonable”. The court may not interfere simply because it would have reached a different conclusion on the facts before the tribunal; there is a high level of judicial deference to the administrative tribunal. 5. Where the sufficiency of evidence is at issue, a decision of the administrative tribunal will only be “patently unreasonable” where there is no evidence to support it. The court should not interfere where the evidence might be viewed as insufficient.