In reviewing a Workplace Violence Prevention Order, the Court of Appeal applies the substantial evidence rule, but also takes into account the fact that the plaintiff bears the burden of producing clear and convincing evidence of a credible threat of violence. So it must determine whether the trial court could, based on the evidence, have found it highly probable that the defendant made a credible threat of future violence. Here, the appellate court finds the evidence insufficient to do so. Defendant, a credit union depositor, became irate, insulting aggressive and derogatory after being thwarted in his desire to establish a business account. But he didn’t threaten violence either in person or in his internet posts about the incident.