R. v. APPLEBY
3 C.C.C. (2d) 354
What degree of proof is required for the accused to negate the presumption of �Care or Control of motor vehicle�?
Section. 224A(1)(a) imposed a burden of proof on the respondent by a preponderance of evidence or by a balance of probabilities and that it is not enough for an accused merely to raise a reasonable doubt. Once the Crown has proved certain facts under s. 224A there is nothing in the statutory presumption which deprives an accused of the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law within the meaning of s. 2(f) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960 (Can.), c. 44 (now R.S.C. 1970, App. III). The words "presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law" as they appear in s. 2(f) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, must be taken to envisage a law which recognizes the existence of statutory exceptions reversing the onus of proof with respect to one or more. In a more refined sense, the presumption of innocence gives an accused the initial benefit of a right of silence and the ultimate benefit (after the Crown's evidence is in and as well any evidence tendered on behalf of the accused) of any reasonable doubt