What is the test for a judicial review of a decision of an adjudicator confirming a 90-day driving ban?

In Lightfoot v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2004 BCSC 1325, a judicial review of the decision of an adjudicator confirming a 90-day driving prohibition imposed upon the accused resulted in the quashing of the decision and remitting the matter for rehearing. In Lightfoot, Mr. Justice Barrow found that it was not possible to determine what conclusions the adjudicator reached with respect to the essential element of the accused’s intentions. It was clear from the adjudicator’s findings that she concluded there was no risk of the accused accidentally setting the vehicle in motion. However, the conclusion that the accused may have acquired the intention to drive, coupled with the finding of a definite risk of setting the vehicle in motion because the accused was found in the driver’s seat with the engine running, provided two alternate interpretations, one which would be reasonable and one which would be unreasonable. Specifically, Barrow J. opined that it would be unreasonable if the adjudicator concluded that although the accused did not have a present intention to drive, he might simply change his mind given his impaired state and drive. However, Barrow J. ultimately held that he was unable to see the essential framework of the adjudicator’s decision or the inferences that were drawn so as to give rise to a meaningful review, and quashed the adjudicator’s decision as being patently unreasonable on that basis. The decision in Lightfoot is therefore not determinative of the issue at hand.