What is the standard of proof at common law?

In FH v. McDougall, the court concluded at para. 40 that: ... there is only one civil standard of proof at common law and that is proof on a balance of probabilities. Of course, context is all important and a judge should not be unmindful, where appropriate, of inherent probabilities or improbabilities where the seriousness of the allegations are consequences. However, these considerations do not change the standard of proof. ...

In Law Society of BC v. Schauble, the hearing panel followed this standard, and summarized the onus and standard of proof as follows (at para. 43): The onus of proof is on the Law Society, and the standard of proof is a balance of probabilities: “... evidence must be scrutinized with care” and “must always be sufficiently clear, convincing and cogent to satisfy the balance of probabilities test. ...” Whether the Respondent said to the Complainant and AC on August 1, 2013 at the New Westminster courthouse that WZ should be put in prison and “maybe he will learn his lesson after he has been gang-raped” (the “alleged comment”)