Voir la source de Présomptions

[[en:Presumptions]]
{{Currency2|January|2016}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderEvidence}}
==Introduction==
A presumption is a reasoning process whereby to some degree, proof of one fact (including the proven absence of a fact) is taken as evidence of another fact. For example, A is an adult, so it is presumed that A is legally competent.

There is a common law presumption of ''doli incapax'', presuming children under the age of 14 are incapable of being criminally liable. This presumption is affirmed within the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

{{reflist|2}}

==Evidence to the Contrary==
{{seealso|Proof of Blood Alcohol Levels#Evidence to the Contrary}}
Anywhere in the Criminal Code which directs a factual inference unless there is "any evidence to the contrary" (ETTC), is a mandatory presumption. 

For example under s. 354(2), an obliterated serial number of a vehicle directs the inference of knowledge that the item was stolen. Where there is no evidence presented to the contrary, the court has no discretion and must conclude knowledge.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Boyle|g19t4|1983 CanLII 1804 (ON CA)|5 CCC (3d) 193}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}</ref>

Evidence to the contrary "is evidence which is not rejected and which raises a reasonable doubt as to the existence of the presumed fact."<ref>
{{ibid1|Boyle}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Proudlock|1mktb|1978 CanLII 15 (SCC)|[1979] 1 SCR 525}}{{perSCC|Estey J}}<br>
</ref>
However, any evidence that is rejected or disbelieved is not ETTC.<ref>
{{ibid1|Proudlock}}{{atp|30}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Nolet (Charette)| (1980), 4 MVR 265}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}{{atp|269}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Clarke|57k1|2003 ABPC 26 (CanLII)|28 Alta LR (4th) 166}}{{perABPC|Semenuk J}}{{atL|57k1|17}}<br>
</ref>

The judge should look at ETTC not as evidence that must be accepted but only as evidence that is capable of raising a doubt.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Tallon|2dthr|1992 ABCA 322 (CanLII)|(1992) 135 AR 146}}{{perABCA|Kerans JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Heisler|2db9n|1994 ABCA 337 (CanLII)|(1995) MVR (3d) 305}}{{TheCourtABCA}}<br>
{{supra1|Clarke}}{{atL|57k1|17}}<br>
</ref>

The ETTC standard does not create any persuasive or ultimate burden on a balance of probabilities.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Proudlock|1mktb|1978 CanLII 15 (SCC)|[1979] 1 SCR 525}}{{perSCC|Pigeon J}}{{atp|28}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dubois|1ph7c|1990 CanLII 2776 (QC CA)|62 CCC (3d) 90}}{{perQCCA|Fish JA}}{{atp|92}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Gibson|1nh94|1992 CanLII 2750 (SK CA)|72 CCC (3d) 28}}{{perSKCA|Bayda CJ}}{{atp|38}}<br>
{{supra1|Heisler}}{{atp|307}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Oldhauser|, (1998) AJ No 1323}}{{perABCA|Berger JA}}{{ats-|3 and 6}}<br>
</ref>

Accepted evidence that shows an absence of intent on an essential element for impaired driving, is ETTC.<ref>
{{supra1|Nolet}}{{atp|269}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Campbell|hv092|1974 CanLII 1502|, 17 CCC (2d) 320}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}<br>
</ref>

These code provisions will tend to violate s. 11(b) Charter rights by shifting the burden onto the accused. However, can remain in force under s.1 as a reasonable limitation.<ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIRP|Downey|1fsbb|1992 CanLII 109 (SCC)|[1992] 2 SCR 10}}{{perSCC|Cory J}}</ref>

; Effect of Satisfying ETTC
Where the accused establishes ETTC, the burden then is upon the prosecution to prove the element beyond a reasonable doubt.<ref>
{{supra1|Proudlock}}<br>
{{supra1|Campbell}}<br>
{{supra1|Nolet}}<br>
</ref>

; Offences with an ETTC Provision
The phrase "evidence to the contrary" is present in several offences:<ref>
see also [[Amendes]]<br>
</ref>
* [[Capacité de conduire affaiblie par l’alcool ou la drogue (infraction)]]
* [[Omission de s’arrêter à la suite d’un accident (infraction)]]
* [[Introduction par effraction (infraction)]]
* [[Présence illégale dans une maison d’habitation (infraction)]]
* [[Vol (infraction)]]
* [[Possession d’une arme à feu prohibée ou à autorisation restreinte (infraction)]]
* [[Défaut de se conformer à une promesse ou ordonnance (infraction)]]
* [[Défaut de fournir les nécessités de la vie (infraction)]]
* [[Entente ou arrangement — infraction d’ordre sexuel à l’égard d’un enfant (infraction)]]

{{reflist|2}}

==Reverse Onuses==
Where a presumption places a reverse onus upon the defence, the burden must always be on a balance of probabilities.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Tupper|1tvtv|1967 CanLII 14 (SCC)|[1967] SCR 589}}{{perSCC|Judson J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Appleby|1nfms|1971 CanLII 4 (SCC)|[1972] SCR 303}}{{perSCC|Ritchie J}}<br>
</ref>

; Constitutionality of a Reverse Onus Presumption
A reverse onus is invalid where the presumption (generally statutory) establishes a fact that is not reasonable inferred from the proven facts.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Oakes|g183s|1983 CanLII 1850 (ON CA)|2 CCC (3d) 339}}{{TheCourtONCA}}</ref> 
However, it may still stand where it is justified under s. 1 of the Charter.<ref>
See [[Constitutional Challenges to Legislation]]
</ref>

Reverse Onuses that have been upheld:
* presumption of knowledge when in possession of stolen property<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Russell|gb3zj|1983 CanLII 3491 (NSCA)|4 CCC (3d) 460}}{{perNSCA|Jones JA}} - presumption does not violate s. 11(d)
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Common Law Presumptions==
A person who possesses stolen property is presumed to have knowledge of its source.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Kowlyk|1ftd7|1988 CanLII 50 (SCC)|[1988] 2 SCR 59, [1998] SCJ No 66}}{{perSCC-H|McIntyre J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Russell|gb3zj|1983 CanLII 3491 (NSCA)|4 CCC (3d) 460}}{{perNSCA|Jones JA}} - presumption does not violate s. 11(d)<br> 
</ref>

A person impaired by drugs is presumed to be voluntarily impaired unless evidence establishes otherwise.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|King|1tvrn|1962 CanLII 16 (SCC)|[1962] SCR 746}}{{Plurality}}</ref>

There is no legal presumption that those testifying in criminal trials are telling the truth.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Luciano|2fhtn|2011 ONCA 89 (CanLII)|267 CCC (3d) 16}}{{perONCA-H|Watt JA}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Presumption of Regularity===
{{seealso|Règle contre les attaques collatérales contre les ordonnances des tribunaux}}
The presumption of regularity (''omnia presumuntur rite esse acta'') in the legal doctrine that creates a presumption that bypasses proof regarding the accuracy and creation of documents and the correctness of actions of public officials.

The presumption of regularity states that a person who acts in a public role is presumed to be entitled to do so.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Bowell| (1975), 27 CCC (2d) 311}}<br>
</ref> 
It also creates a rebuttable presumption that official documents, including court documents or public records, are accurate<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Mayan|g6brd|2014 MBQB 58 (CanLII)}}{{perMBQB|Greenberg J}}{{atsL|g6brd|15| à 19}}<br>
</ref>

For the presumption of regularity to be invoked there should exist the following:<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Molina|1w8n4|2008 ONCA 212 (CanLII)|231 CCC (3d) 193}}{{perONCA|Blair JA}}{{atL|1w8n4|12}} citing Wigmore<br>
</ref>
# the matter is more or less in the past, and incapable of easily procured evidence; 
# it involves a mere formality, or detail of required procedure, in the routine of a litigation or of a public officer's action; 
# it involves to some extent the security of apparently vested rights, so that the presumption will serve to prevent an unwholesome uncertainty; 
# that the circumstances of the particular case add some element of probability.

The presumption applies to the endorsements on an information.<ref>
{{CanLIIRxC|R c LO|21swf|2008 ONCA 830 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|21swf|5}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Statutory Presumptions==
* [[Troubles mentaux|Presumption of Sanity]] - [{{CCCSec|16}} s. 16(4)]
* [[Making Sexually Explicit Materials Available to Child (Offence)|Making Sexually Explicit Materials Available to a Child]] - s. 171.1(3)
* [[Leurre d'enfants (infraction)]] - s. 172.1(3)
* [[Entente ou arrangement — infraction d’ordre sexuel à l’égard d’un enfant (infraction)|Agreement to Commit a Sexual Offence Against a Child]] - s. 172.2(3)
* Procuring - s. 212(3)
* [[Défaut de fournir les nécessités de la vie (infraction)|Necessities of Life]] - s. 215(4) presumption 
* [[Presumption of Identity Under Section 258 (Until December 13, 2018)|presumption of identity]] - s. 258
* [[Proof of Blood Alcohol Levels (Until December 13, 2018)|Presumption of accuracy]] - s. 258(1)(g)
* [[Libelle diffamatoire (infraction)]] - s.303 creates a presumption that the owner of a newspaper is responsible for any defamatory materials in the publication
* [[Introduction par effraction (infraction)]] - s.348(2) creates a presumption that evidence of break-in/break-out is for an unlawful purpose
* [[Unlawfully in a Dwelling (Offence)]] - s. 349(2) creates a presumption of unlawful purpose when found in a dwelling
* [[Escroquerie — faux semblant ou fausse déclaration (infraction)]] - s. 362(4) presumption of false pretenses when cheque issued with no funds
* Possession of Stolen Minerals - s. 656 Possession of minerals presumes it was stolen or unlawfully possessed

With the presumption of sanity, the defence must prove lack of sanity on a balance of probabilities.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Hebert|22tnw|1954 CanLII 48 (SCC)|[1955] SCR 120}}{{perSCC|Kerwin CJ}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Smyth|gwb83|1940 CanLII 384 (SCC)|[1941] SCR 17}}{{perSCC|Duff CJ}}<br>
</ref>The same standard applies if raised by the Crown.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Simpson|g1dvj|1977 CanLII 1142 (ON CA)|35 CCC (2d) 337}}{{perONCA-H|Martin JA}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Constitutional Presumptions==
* [[Présomption d'innocence]] - s 11(d) of the Charter

==Voir également==
* [[Constitutional Challenges to Legislation]] - statutory presumptions may be invalid due to violating the presumption of innocence.