The Court held that an adjudicator's use of language suggesting the respondent had not 'convinced' him did not, on a fair contextual reading, amount to an impermissible imposition of an onus of proof; rather, it reflected the adjudicator's assessment of the competing evidence and available inferences. The Court confirmed that issues not raised in a payment schedule cannot be raised for the first time in an adjudication response, and that a respondent's failure to raise a measurement methodology challenge in the payment schedule precluded reliance on it later. On unreasonableness, the Court held that while the adjudicator's doubling of lineal metres was probably factually incorrect, it was not unreasonable to the point of invalidation given the tight statutory timeframes, limited information available, the interim nature of the determination, and the impermissibility of using reasonableness review as a disguised merits inquiry.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.