What is the meaning of the words “no compelling evidence” in a motor vehicle accident application?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Dhaliwal v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2013 BCSC 1006 (CanLII):
Counsel for the petitioner takes exception to the words “no compelling evidence” and says that in using those words, the Adjudicator was reversing the onus and placing an obligation on the petitioner to present “compelling evidence” that he was not the driver. The petitioner correctly cites Spencer v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, 2011 BCSC 1311 at para. 31 for the proposition that the “onus is on the officer to justify the prohibition on the balance of probabilities”
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What is the legal test for using the word "superintendent of Motor Vehicles" in a motor vehicle application? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the difference between a motor vehicle accident and a subsequent motor vehicle collision? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a motor vehicle accident is an accident or an accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
In a motor vehicle accident involving a stolen vehicle, can the driver of the stolen vehicle be held liable for damages? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for producing expert evidence in a motor vehicle accident case? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the evidence in the context of a motor vehicle accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is affidavit evidence admissible in a motor vehicle prohibition application? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for establishing causation between a motor vehicle accident and a subsequent accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
When there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury in the context of a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, does the claimant have to prove that there is a continuing injury? (British Columbia, Canada)
In a motor vehicle accident, can a plaintiff continue to suffer from chronic neck and back pain for at least three years after the accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
