Many decisions in administrative processes are made using a standard called the balance of probabilities.
This standard is commonly used in Canadian decision-making, including in professional regulation, workplaces, tribunals, and post-secondary institutions. It asks a practical question: based on the available information, what is most likely to have happened?
The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is only one civil standard of proof, proof on a balance of probabilities (F.H. v. McDougall, 2008).
Understanding how this standard works can make decision-making processes feel more transparent and predictable.
Defining balance of probabilities
The balance of probabilities means deciding whether one version of events is more likely than another.
A helpful way to think about this is as a scale. Each side represents a different explanation of what happened. A decision maker considers the available information and determines which explanation carries more weight.
The standard is met when one explanation is more convincing overall, even if only slightly more convincing.
This does not require certainty. Courts often describe the task as determining whether something probably happened, rather than simply possibly happened (Paciocco & Stuesser, 2020).
Decision makers frequently work with incomplete information. Some situations do not produce clear records or independent witnesses. The standard recognizes that reasonable conclusions can still be reached using the information available.
Evidence is considered as a whole. Individual pieces of information may not be conclusive on their own, but together they may support one explanation more strongly than another (Paciocco & Stuesser, 2020).
From a student perspective, this means that no single statement or document usually decides the outcome on its own. Instead, decision makers are weighing how different pieces of information fit together. Clear explanations, consistency over time, and relevant context can each add weight to one side of the scale.
Application in administrative decision-making
Administrative decision makers are expected to apply policies fairly and consistently while considering the circumstances of each situation.
Canadian administrative law recognizes that decisions must be both procedurally fair and reasonable (Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999) (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008).
Fair decision making generally involves:
- considering relevant information
- applying applicable policies or rules
- providing an opportunity to respond
- reaching conclusions supported by the available information
The balance of probabilities allows decisions to be made responsibly even when certainty is not possible.
Decision makers typically consider multiple sources of information together rather than relying on a single factor.
These may include:
- written accounts
- documentation or records
- timelines of events
- consistency of explanations
- contextual information
- how applicable policies relate to the situation
Decision makers often assess both credibility and reliability. This involves considering whether information is trustworthy and whether it fits logically with other available information.
Probability is assessed cumulatively. Several pieces of information may work together to support one explanation more strongly than another (Paciocco & Stuesser, 2020).
No single detail usually determines the outcome on its own.
Clarity can assist decision makers in understanding how different pieces of information relate to one another. Relevant information may include:
- a clear explanation of events
- consistent accounts across communications
- context that helps explain how a situation developed
- reference to documents or communications where appropriate
Small details can contribute to a fuller understanding of the situation.
How decisions reflect the balance of probabilities
Decision letters often use language that reflects a balancing process, even when the phrase balance of probabilities is not stated directly.
A decision may indicate that a conclusion was:
- established
- not established
- supported by the information
- not supported by the available evidence
These phrases reflect a determination about which explanation was more likely based on the information considered.
Review or appeal processes often focus on whether the decision maker considered relevant information, applied policy appropriately, and followed a fair process, rather than whether certainty was achieved (Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008).
Understanding the standard can help make decision-making processes feel more transparent and easier to navigate.
Support in navigating decision-making processes
Understanding how decisions are made can help individuals participate more confidently in administrative processes.
The Office of the Ombudsperson provides confidential and impartial assistance to students who have questions or concerns about a decision or the process used to reach it. We can help clarify how policies are applied, identify relevant considerations, and explore available options for addressing concerns. The Office does not make decisions, but works to promote fairness, transparency, and consistency in university processes.
Decisions made under the balance of probabilities can feel difficult to understand, especially when the outcome has real impacts. If you’d like to connect, please reach out to the Office through any of the methods listed at Connect With Us.
References
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 (Supreme Court of Canada July 9, 1999).
Delisle, R., Stuart, D., Tanovich, D. M., & Dufraimont, L. (2024). Evidence Principles and Problems. Canada: Thomson Reuters Canada.
Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 2008 SCC 9 (Supreme Court of Canada March 7, 2008).
F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41 (Supreme Court of Canada October 2, 2008).
Flood, C. M., Sossin, L., & Kelly, F. (2023). Administrative Law in Context (4th Edition) . Toronto, Canada: Emond Publishing.
Paciocco, D. M., & Stuesser, L. (2020). The Law of Evidence (8th Edition) . Canada: Irwin Law.
Régimbald, G. (2021). Canadian Administrative Law (3rd Edition). Canada: LexisNexis Canada.