Cfrtjryk

We all know the phrase: "The onus of proof is on you" or "The onus is on you to do some thing or the other."

Ok, so the onus was put on me and I have done that thing or the other. Now, with respect to the onus, what have I done? Have I "carried the onus"? "Met the onus"? That doesn't sound right. And I haven't "removed the onus", that's just undoing it being put on me.

So what's the word or phrase I'm looking for?

The onus has been discharged.

See, for example this extract from Equity and Trusts: Text, Cases and Materials by Paul S. Davies, which refers to a case called Re Harwood, and cites an extract from the judge's decision:

'The evidence in this case is so unsatisfactory that I cannot say that
the onus has been discharged'

If an onus is discharged, it means the person on whom it rested has taken care of it. It doesn't mean that someone has decided they don't need to do it. In the specific example here, the judge was saying the evidence in the case was so poor that he couldn't decide whether the onus had been discharged at all.

A person may 'bear a burden' or 'have an onus placed on him', in just the same way that someone can hand you responsibility for something, metaphorically speaking. But once that burden has been dealt with (fully), the onus is lifted or discharged. "Discharging an onus" - in legal terms - simply means doing what needed to be done; there's no implication of it being 'early'. Finally, just because a term is used in legal works doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be used in more general conversation too.
1:

Let's look first at the definition of onus, from the Oxford English Dictionary:

1. A burden; a responsibility or duty. Freq. with the




2. orig. and chiefly Law. onus of proof n. the obligation to prove an assertion or allegation one makes; the burden of proof

For the Definition #2, you can discharge the onus. From Employment Law, Practical Handbook:

How to discharge the onus of proof in an adverse action claim.......

The Court identified the following as circumstances in which the
employer might not discharge the onus of proof – but ruled that none
of them applied in this case:

• the managers’ evidence is discredited in cross-examination;




• the managers’ evidence is inherently implausible;




• objective facts contradict the managers’ evidence

(You don't want me to quote more, do you? :))

Thus, I suggest that once you have disposed of whatever obligations (legal or otherwise) you assumed when you assumed the onus, you have discharged the onus.

Example (made up): I discharged the onus of providing refreshments
for the after-game party by buying a lot of frozen goodies and
microwaving them.

Addendum Provided at Request of the OP:

From Discharging the onus in adverse action claims - What employers can do in the post-Barclay environment: (Partial quote only; see full article for all the riveting facts. Note also that this is from Australia.)

If Mr Crompton engaged in industrial activity, did BHP discharge the
onus of proof?

Justice Collier noted that if she was wrong and that Mr Crompton had
engaged in industrial activity, then BHP Coal bore the onus of proving
that it did not dismiss Mr Crompton for that reason. Her Honour
referred to the decision of Chief Justice French and Justice Crennan
in Barclay, affirming that “the question of why the decision maker [in
an alleged case of adverse action] has acted is one of fact.”

Justice Collier accepted BHP Coal’s submission that it had discharged
that onus, and found that BHP Coal’s decision makers were satisfied
that Mr Crompton had engaged in serious misconduct by “improperly
directing co-workers when to work or not work” and “engaging in
physical and verbal abuse of a co-worker.”

A reason for this conclusion was that Justice Collier preferred the
evidence of BHP Coal’s representatives over Mr Crompton’s testimony.
In choosing to accept the BHP Coal personnel as credible witnesses,
Justice Collier placed considerable emphasis on the thorough internal
investigation conducted by Ms Jorja Roberts (HR Adviser) and Mr Mark
Stroppiana (HR Manager) of BHP Coal

The way I read this, and I am not a lawyer, is that the coal company had the burden of proving it had fired the employee because he had misbehaved, not because he had engaged in industrial activity; the coal company proved it to the satisfaction of the court, and so discharged the onus of proof.

What you are wanting to do doesn't work with the word onus because the onus doesn't go away.

Consider "the onus of caring for the elderly usually falls on their children".

It doesn't matter if Wednesday is your day in the barrel, the onus doesn't get vanquished in the way a to-do list entry does. At least we don't talk about it in that manner. An onus is durable. It lasts as long as the actual circumstance does, regardless of how many actors enter and exit the stage. You don't talk of having the onus to do an oil change.

The idea of discharging an onus is nearly always cast in the negative or the very unlikely.

Some usage examples-

The purchase of guaranteed railways owned by foreign companies likewise added largely to the bonded indebtedness, though the onus was in existence in another form.

..

If so, apologetics is literally a science, and it is pedantry to claim the defensive and pretend to throw the onus probandi upon objectors.

Read more at http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/onus#D366q73Z7a0D2BBH.99

The onus is on my generation to remember the previous chapters in Anglo-Jewry's story.

https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/the-onus-is-on-my-generation-to-remember-the-previous-chapters-in-anglo-jewry-s-story-1.147924