As I have stated, the test on review of the police officer’s decision is reasonableness. There are authorities which state that, where a driver applies to the superintendent for review of a s. 215.41 driving prohibition, the police officer who issued the notice of prohibition, bears the burden of proving on that review that the driving prohibition was justified. See Spencer v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, supra, at para. 31; Nagra v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, supra, at para 20. I was not referred to any authority which sets out the burden of proof and the scope of review under s. 215.1, where a driver seeks review by the superintendent of a 24-hour driving prohibition imposed pursuant to s. 215(2), based on alcohol consumption. It would appear from s. 215.3 that the grounds available on such a review may be quite limited, and that the burden of proof rests on the applicant (at least, with respect to the limited grounds that are specified in s. 215.3).
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.