However, Melnick J. also recognized that an adjudicator cannot use such knowledge and experience in place of evidence. At ¶9, Melnick J. held: In Dennis v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), [1999] B.C.J. No. 1568 (B.C.S.C.) (reasoning for our purposes upheld at 2000 BCCA 653), Mr. Justice Melvin found that the use by an adjudicator of specialized training and understanding and evaluating evidence was not a substitute for evidence. This was described by Mr. Justice Macaulay in Jones at para. 42 as a subtle distinction that it continued to cause some confusion. As Mr. Justice Macaulay noted in that paragraph: As the Court of Appeal emphasized in that case [Dennis], however, it was the use of such knowledge in the place of properly disclosed evidence that was most problematic.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.