Can a trial judge extrapolate back that because a cow became sick, it must have been exposed to hydrocarbons?

It is also problematic for a trial judge to extrapolate back that because a cow became sick, it must have been exposed to hydrocarbons. That might be possible if the particular sickness only, or predominantly, could come from hydrocarbon consumption. Much of the evidence on this record did not support that conclusion. The appellant’s experts testified that many of the problems experienced by the respondent’s herd were unrelated to hydrocarbon consumption. Extrapolating back from damage to find a cause also runs the real risk of reversing the burden of proof. It is contrary to the rule in Resurfice: see Fisher v. Atack at paras. 56-59. If the trial judge engaged in that form of analysis, the appellant was entitled to have it set out in the reasons for judgment.