What is the test for confirming a notice of prohibition?

I described the task of the adjudicator in Helgesen v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2002 BCSC 1391, as follows, at para. 11: The task of the adjudicator is to review the evidence and information to determine whether the conditions required before an officer is entitled to serve a notice of prohibition were met. The burden falls on the officer to satisfy the adjudicator on the civil standard of proof. Accordingly, before confirming the prohibition, the adjudicator must be satisfied that it is more probable than not that the individual’s circumstances fell within s. 94.6(1)(a) or (b). Section 94.6(1)(b) governed the adjudicator’s review in the present case. It reads: 94.6 (1) If after considering an application for review under section 94.4, the superintendent is satisfied that … (b) the person failed or refused, without a reasonable excuse, to comply with a demand made on the person to supply a sample of his or her breath or blood under section 254 of the Criminal Code in respect of the operation or care of or control of a motor vehicle the superintendent must confirm the driving prohibition. There is no doubt that the adjudicator in the present case understood the task at hand.