Relying on Mr. Justice McEwan’s judgment in Kenyon v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles 2014 BCSC 168, the petitioner further submits that there can be cases in which the version of events given by the police officer and the version given by the petitioner may be equally balanced, so that the police officer will have failed to meet the standard of proof: see para. 37 and 50 - 51. The petitioner submits that, in the present case, it was unreasonable for the police officer to decide that the petitioner should be prohibited from driving because, at best, the evidence of the two competing versions was equally balanced. This amounts to the submission that the conclusion that the petitioner’s ability to drive was not affected by marihuana, was just as probable as the conclusion that is was so affected.
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.