A trial judge's use of the word 'unsustainable' in relation to competing hypotheses is an erroneous formulation of the civil standard of proof that should be avoided, as it may suggest the plaintiff must negate all alternative hypotheses. However, such an error in formulation will not vitiate the decision if the judge in fact applied the correct standard when the reasons are read as a whole. A plaintiff in a civil case is not required to negate all alternative hypotheses; the question is whether the plaintiff's hypothesis is more probable than not.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.