beginning of his detention, remains a danger to national security or to the safety of any person or is unlikely to appear at a proceeding or for removal (see subsection 83(3) of the Act). I note that Parliament has used the word "or", which creates an alternative between one of the reasons cited. Moreover, the designated judge, having given the respondent an opportunity to be heard, must ask himself whether the evidence presented by the respondent challenges the evidence in support of continued detention, if any. In doing so, he must consider all the evidence of the parties (including that presented in the absence of the respondent). The initial onus is therefore on the Ministers, although it may shift to the respondent if the Ministers' evidence is sufficient. Where applicable, the respondent must in turn satisfy the designated judge that the continued detention is not justified. [37]When signing the arrest warrant, the Ministers assessed the danger to national security or the safety of any person or the possibility that the respondent would avoid the procedure or removal according to the reasonableness standard. This is the standard of proof designated by Parliament. Needless to say, the review of the ministerial action must be conducted according to the same standard. [38]This standard of proof was defined in immigration matters by the Federal Court of Appeal in Attorney General of Canada v. Jolly , [1975] F.C. 216 (C.A.), per the former Chief Justice Thurlow, who wrote [at pages 225-226]: . . . where