[12] This plain error by the adjudicator is compounded by the cursory nature of that same adjudicator’s reasons for the Decision. It is generally not good practice to simply adopt one side’s submissions without more, although not always fatal: Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women’s Hospital and Health Centre, 2013 SCC 30, [2013] 2 S.C.R. 357. However, it is not necessary to consider the question of the adequacy of the reasons for the Decision in any detail here. There is no mention of the onus in the Decision at all and, considering the reasons for the Decision, or lack thereof, the reasons for the Reconsideration decision and the related context, we conclude that the error regarding onus taints the Decision as well.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
