How have the authorities relating to judicial review of a decision to confirm or revoke a decision by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles under s. 215.41?

The petitioner submitted that the authorities relating to judicial review of the superintendent’s decision to confirm or revoke a driving prohibition issued under s. 215.41 establish that, although the court on review cannot make its own findings of credibility, the court can assess the tribunal’s method of reasoning to its decision on credibility, for reasonableness. See Scott v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) 2013 BCCA 554 at paras. 28 - 32 and 38.

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.