Case Briefs
Database For Canadian Criminal Law


List of Similar Cases | Add Data to This Case | Edit


  Home |Add a new case | List of Issues 
Search for a Case by Name, Cite, Issue, Facts and Reasons

Find A Case That Starts With


ID: 351

Title: R. v. APPLEBY

Cite: 3 C.C.C. (2d) 354

Court: SCC

Date: 28/06/1971

Justices: Fauteux, C.J.C., Abbott, Martland, Judson, Ritchie, Hall, Spence, Pigeon and Laskin, JJ.

Result: Appeal allowed

WhoWon: P

Issue: Care or Control




What degree of proof is required for the accused to negate the presumption of ‘Care or Control of motor vehicle’? Edit


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 Edit

 Biss Private Use Only


Click this link to Add Your Comments about: R. v. APPLEBY

Click here to Add a Hyperlink re  R. v. APPLEBY