What is the standard of review for all issues the petitioner raises?

The standard of review for all issues the petitioner raises is reasonableness. This is a deferential standard. A reviewing court must inquire into the qualities that make the decision reasonable, both in terms of the adjudicator’s reasoning process, and also “whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law.”: Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9.

In Nagra v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2010 BCCA 154 at para. 30, the court explained that an adjudicator is able to make findings of fact and resolve credibility issues on conflicting evidence: The fact that a driver files an affidavit on a review that either disputes that a demand was made, or advances a reasonable excuse for refusing to provide a breath sample, does not mean that an adjudicator cannot find facts sufficient to confirm the prohibition. Providing there is evidence upon which to reasonably find that a driver failed or refused, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a demand, then an adjudicator can confirm the prohibition, and that decision will withstand scrutiny on judicial review.

While an adjudicator can resolve credibility disputes, if the reasoning process is manifestly flawed, the court may interfere with the ultimate conclusion. One example of flawed reasoning is to presume that police evidence has a ‘baseline’ reliability: Scott v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2013 BCCA 554 at para. 32.

The proper approach on judicial review was further explained in Kenyon v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2015 BCCA 485 at paras. 54 and 55: