The standard of proof in civil law is set out in section 140 of the Evidence Act. The legislation also provides a framework that courts can use to decide whether an issue has been resolved after assessing probability. In summary, the civil standard of proof of likelihood may be interpreted differently by different decision-makers in different jurisdictions. In its simplest form, if the decision-maker believes that one version of events is 51% more likely than the other, the required standard of proof of the balance of probability is met. Although the balance of probabilities is an easy term to understand at first glance, it can be difficult to determine whether the threshold has been met in a particular situation. Briginshaw v. Briginshaw of 1930 set out two very important considerations to help decision-makers determine what might or might not succeed in meeting this standard of proof. This is where a decision-maker must be convinced of the issues before him or her after weighing probabilities: The civil law standard of proof is evidence on a balance of probabilities. The criminal standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
This article deals with civil standards of evidence. To say that something is proven on a weight of probabilities means that it is more likely than not. This means that it is likely, that is, the probability of an event occurring is greater than 50%. The mathematical proof for a probability assessment is therefore a 50.1% probability that something happened. A lawyer I once knew explained it that way. They see the scales of justice. They are evenly balanced. Both sides are of the same height. But if one side has added the weight of a spring, makes it go down and the other side go up. Now this site has won with the weight of a feather.
Higher evidence is not required. Just a compromise on both sides to see which side has the stronger evidence. The following are quotes from cases in which judges have commented on the standard of proof in civil law: McIver v. Power, [1998] P.E.I.J. No. 4, Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island – Trial Division, C.J.T.D. MacDonald, 5 In any civil case, the applicant must prove his case after assessing the likelihood of success. This means that the plaintiff must prove that his facts tip the scales in his favor, even if there is only a 51% probability that he is right.
F.H. v. McDougall, [2008] S.C.J. No. 54: 44 In other words, it seems inappropriate for a judge to conclude that it is more likely than not that an event occurred, but not sufficiently to an unspecified standard, and therefore did not occur. As Lord Hoffman explained at paragraph 2 of In re B, where a law requires that a fact be proved (a “disputed fact”), a judge or jury must decide whether or not it occurred. There is no room for a statement that this could have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are zero and one. The fact did or did not occur. If the court is left in doubt, the doubt is resolved by a rule that either party bears the burden of proof.
If the party bearing the burden of proof does not meet the burden, a value of zero is returned and the event is considered not to have occurred. If it discharges it, a value of one is returned and the fact is treated as if it occurred. In my view, the only practical way to reach a finding of fact in a civil case is to decide whether it is more likely than not that the event occurred. [49] In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that there is only one standard of proof in civil cases, and that is proof after weighing probabilities. Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311 is a case of medical malpractice and the issue was whether the plaintiff needed a reliable medical report to establish a causal link between her surgical result and the defendant physician`s actions. Justice Sopinka, writing for the Supreme Court of Canada, commented on the difference between medical safety and legal certainty. He commented that “almost certainly” is the medical standard of causation, while the legal standard only requires a 51% probability.