Does the burden of proof still need to be discharged?

In my opinion, this principle applies in the present case and supports my view that the burden of proof has not been discharged, the insurance company having admitted that the policy was in effect. It must have the burden of proving, with the degree of proof referred to in the Hanes v. Wawanesa case, that the operator was not the owner or some person operating the vehicle with the consent of the owner. However, I think it is desirable that I consider the question of the credibility of witnesses, as if the onus or burden of proof was not on the insurance company.