No case requires 100% proof, regardless of the type of case. The burden of proof is often based on two different but related concepts: the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. In some cases, there is the opposite responsibility for the accused. A typical example is a hit-and-run charge prosecuted under the Canadian Criminal Code. It is presumed that the accused fled the scene of the accident to avoid civil or criminal liability if the prosecution can prove the remaining essential elements of the crime. A preponderance of evidence is also the standard of proof used in U.S. administrative law. Probable reason is a higher standard of proof than reasonable suspicion used in the United States to determine whether a search or arrest is inappropriate. It is also used by grand juries to decide whether to lay charges. In the civil law context, this standard is often used when claimants seek relief prior to judgment. “Reality air” is a standard of proof used in Canada to determine whether a criminal defence can be used. The test is whether a defence can succeed if all the facts alleged are assumed to be true.
In most cases, the burden of proof lies solely with the prosecution, so such a defence is not necessary. However, if exceptions arise and the burden of proof has shifted to the accused, the accused must establish a defence that involves a “touch of reality”. Two cases in which such a case could occur are, first, where prima facie evidence has been gathered against the accused, or second, where the defence makes a positive defence, such as a plea for mental illness. This is similar, but not identical, to the concept of summary judgment in the United States.  The clear and persuasive standard of proof is higher than the preponderance of the evidence, but lower than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If the preponderance of evidence requires only that the applicant “tip the balance” to prove the error, the clear and convincing standard must show that an error is “substantial” and “materially” more likely to be true than false. An inquiry freeze is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.  The state must justify the seizure by proving that the officer who made the stop had a reasonable artificial suspicion that criminal activity was taking place.  The important point is that public servants can only deprive a citizen of his liberty if they can report certain facts and circumstances and draw conclusions that would constitute reasonable suspicion.  The officer must be willing to prove that the criminal activity was a logical explanation for what he or she perceived. The requirement serves to prevent officials from arresting people solely on the basis of unfounded assumptions or suspicions.  The purpose of detention and arrest is, to the extent necessary, to confirm or dispel the initial suspicions.
 If the initial confrontation with the detainee dispels suspicions of criminal activity, the officer must terminate the detention and allow the person to go about his or her business.  If the investigation confirms the officer`s initial suspicion or reveals evidence that would justify continued detention, the officer may request that the arrested person remain at the crime scene until the investigation is completed and may justify probable cause.  When comparing the preponderance of evidence and reasonable standards of doubt, the latter has a much higher burden of proof than the former. As mentioned above, in order to define the predominance of the evidence, the plaintiff only has to prove that the incident most likely occurred. Beyond a reasonable doubt has a much higher standard, since the prosecutor must eliminate any reasonable doubt to prove guilt. Other standards used to assess evidence in a criminal law context include reasonable faith and reasonable suspicion. Any police intervention subject to these standards of evidence must be based on reasonable grounds in the circumstances.