What is the effect of the roadside driving prohibition scheme and its related review provisions?

In coming to this conclusion, Frankel J.A. noted the public policy rationale for the roadside driving prohibition scheme and the related review provisions and the legislative choices made in implementing that scheme. He cited the decision of Southin J.A. in Bahia v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2006 BCCA 511, where at para. 24 she noted that, “It is not in keeping with the legislative purpose to import into this administrative process the panoply of procedural protection an accused enjoys in a criminal prosecution.”

Frankel J.A. further noted that it was up to the adjudicator to review and assess the evidence presented on the review and to determine what evidence to accept and what to reject. At para. 27 he endorsed the following statement of Gray J. in Shadow v. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles et al., 2002 BCSC 790: Making findings of fact, including choosing what or who to believe and not believe, and drawing inferences from the evidence, is the responsibility of the adjudicator. If there is some evidence upon which a finding could reasonably be made, this court should not interfere. … [Emphasis added by Frankel J.A.]