the burden of proof
Just what does the demand for Vinland to show 'burden of proof" mean?
We can look back at Justice Russel's written decision available at www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlsctd/doc/2006/2006nltd122 to get an idea.
Justice Douglas in 2006 writes :
" I also find merit in the submission of the intervenor Noranda that the reality is that all individuals having any dealings with the disputed lands, including the Mineral Claims Recorder and the successsors in title to the AND Co., have all treated the disputed lands as falling within, and forming part of the Charter lands. As such, if Vinland wishes to challenge the historic treatment of the disputed lands, then it bore the burden of convincing the Board, on the balance of probabilities, that the historic treatment to the disputed lands was incorrect, and that, in fact, Vinland had correctly identified an error which had existed for some 90 plus years."
IMO I don't think so or we would now know specifically what that was. It would have been already presented in court. We don't know be cause maybe there just isn't enough solid evidence to support his claim. Certainly there is some contradictory evidence. Enough so that this hasn't been a cut and dry decision. Take a look at one of the above phrases " the balance of probabilities". Not a lawyer here, but to me that means to demonstrate burden of proof you have to have the majority of the evidence in your favor.
again from Judge Russel :
"Effectively, the Board, having said there was substantial and significant evidence, only referred to three specific exhibits as being examples of this other substantial and significant evidence. The parties were entitled to know what the other substantial and significant evidence the Board was basing its decision on, and how the Board treated the evidence and submissions of teh appellants on this issue."
So if you look at "the balance of probabilities" and realize in hundreds of documents, maps, etc used as evidence in this 2006 trial, the old Board could only come up with THREE specific pieces to support their decision,
it was no wonder the Supreme Court overturned the prior decision. Amazing.
Has Vinland now come up with some new and clearly convincing evidence for the new Board ??? I guess we'll find out. Pretty darn soon too. My money is on Canstar.