Top Politican Kills Bicyclist

[Barrister]

that is sort of unclear.  Assume there is evidence to the contrary.  Does the presumption vanish or does it persist?  If it persists, how strong is it and what is needed to overcome it?  The quoted part of the statute doesn't answer those questions.

It pretty much vanishes.

There are a lot of presumptions in criminal law when it comes to motor vehicle.  The practical effect of them is to force the accused to take the stand since otherwise the Crown can rely on the presumption.  Once the accused does take the stand, unless their evidence is simply disbelieved and rejected it will rebut the presumption unless the Crown has other evidence to rely upon.

[Malthus]

that is sort of unclear.  Assume there is evidence to the contrary.  Does the presumption vanish or does it persist?  If it persists, how strong is it and what is needed to overcome it?  The quoted part of the statute doesn't answer those questions.

Here's the full section, which doesn't answer them either:

252. (1) Every person commits an offence who has the care, charge or control of a vehicle, vessel or aircraft that is involved in an accident with

(a) another person,

(b) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft, or

(c) in the case of a vehicle, cattle in the charge of another person,

and with intent to escape civil or criminal liability fails to stop the vehicle, vessel or, if possible, the aircraft, give his or her name and address and, where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance, offer assistance.

Punishment

(1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) in a case not referred to in subsection (1.2) or (1.3) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Offence involving bodily harm

(1.2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) knowing that bodily harm has been caused to another person involved in the accident is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Offence involving bodily harm or death

(1.3) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life if

(a) the person knows that another person involved in the accident is dead; or

(b) the person knows that bodily harm has been caused to another person involved in the accident and is reckless as to whether the death of the other person results from that bodily harm, and the death of that other person so results.

Evidence

(2) In proceedings under subsection (1), evidence that an accused failed to stop his vehicle, vessel or, where possible, his aircraft, as the case may be, offer assistance where any person has been injured or appears to require assistance and give his name and address is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of an intent to escape civil or criminal liability.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 252; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36; 1994, c. 44, s. 12; 1999, c. 32, s. 1(Preamble).

Operation while impaired

253. (1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

(a) while the person's ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or a drug; or

(b) having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person's blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.

For greater certainty

(2) For greater certainty, the reference to impairment by alcohol or a drug in paragraph (1)(a) includes impairment by a combination of alcohol and a drug.

The answers are going to be in the case law: BB would of course know better than I.

Baker seems to be the leading case in Ontario:

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=252%282%29+criminal+code&language=en&searchTitle=Search+all+CanLII+Databases&path=/en/on/onca/doc/2006/2006canlii19332/2006canlii19332.html

(3)      Rebutting The Presumption of s. 252(2) With Evidence to the Contrary

[34]         Section 252(2) of the Criminal Code provides that the evidence that Mr. Baker failed to stop his vessel and offer assistance to the Peats is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of intent to escape civil or criminal liability.  In his instructions to the jury, the trial judge said, "evidence to the contrary" means "evidence that you do not reject that leads you to believe or have a reasonable doubt that Mr. Baker intended to escape civil or criminal liability for the accident". 

[35]         Counsel for Mr. Baker submits that the trial judge erred by defining "evidence to the contrary" in that way.  He says that "evidence to the contrary" is merely evidence that has not been rejected and that tends away from the presumed intent, and that, where there is such evidence on the record, the jury is required to determine guilt or innocence in the absence of the presumption.

[36]         In my view, the trial judge put the matter properly.  There is no lower standard of proof, below reasonable doubt, that can be relied upon to rebut a presumption. In R. v. Boucher, 2005 SCC 72 (CanLII), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 499, at para. 21, the Supreme Court said of a different but similar presumption:

Evidence to the contrary that is adduced to rebut the presumption of accuracy in s. 258(1)(g) Cr. C. must tend to show that the certificate does not in fact correctly reflect the blood alcohol level at the time of the breathalyzer test. This evidence must raise a reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the breathalyzer result.

[37]         In a much older case, R. v. Proudlock (1978), 43 C.C.C. (2d) 321 (S.C.C.), the court had said, in explaining the expression "evidence to the contrary" in s. 306(2)(a) of the Criminal Code:

... all the presumption does is to establish a prima facie case. The burden of proof does not shift.  The accused does not have to "establish" a defence or an excuse, all he has to do is to raise a reasonable doubt.  If there is nothing in the evidence adduced by the Crown from which a reasonable doubt can arise, then the accused will necessarily have the burden of adducing evidence if he is to escape conviction.  However, he will not have the burden of proving his innocence, it will be sufficient if, at the conclusion of the case on both sides, the trier of fact has a reasonable doubt.

[38]         I would not give effect to this ground of appeal