How has the adjudicator dealt with conflicting evidence central to the determination of whether the officer honestly suspected the respondent had alcohol in his body at the time of the stop?

The issue on judicial review was whether the adjudicator addressed conflicting evidence central to the determination of whether the officer honestly suspected the respondent had alcohol in his body at the time of the stop. The chambers judge concluded that the adjudicator’s decision was unreasonable within the meaning of Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9 because it was neither transparent nor intelligible. Specifically, the chambers judge held that it was not possible to discern from the reasons why factual issues central to the outcome of the review – the most important of which was whether the officer detected alcohol on the respondent’s breath – were resolved against the respondent. The Superintendent takes issue with aspects of the analytical approach taken by the chambers judge and with his conclusion that the decision was unreasonable.