Can an adjudicator resolve credibility disputes if the adjudicator's reasoning process is manifestly flawed?

British Columbia, Canada

The following excerpt is from Sangha v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2017 BCSC 607 (CanLII):

While an adjudicator can resolve credibility disputes, if the reasoning process is manifestly flawed, the court may interfere with the ultimate conclusion. One example of flawed reasoning is to presume that police evidence has a ‘baseline’ reliability: Scott v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), 2013 BCCA 554 at para. 32.

Other Questions

In what circumstances will a adjudicator's reasoning be manifestly flawed where the adjudicator failed to consider the evidence supporting the findings of two witnesses? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is the adjudicator’s assessment of credibility based on a flawed approach to assessing credibility? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the term "manifestly flawed" mean that a judge is manifestly flawed? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a flaw or flaws be seen in the reasons of an adjudicator? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a court interfere if the adjudicator’s reasoning is manifestly flawed? (British Columbia, Canada)
Will a Superintendent of Motor Vehicles be found to be unreasonable when their reasoning process is manifestly flawed? (British Columbia, Canada)
How to read the reasons of the adjudicator as a whole to assess whether the decision was reasonable? (British Columbia, Canada)
What are the manifest flaws in an adjudicator’s decision? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for credibility in a motor vehicle adjudicator's assessment of credibility? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have courts in BC considered credibility and the impact on medical evidence in assessing credibility and credibility? (British Columbia, Canada)

Alexi white

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.