Section 21 - Applying rebuttable presumptions

In an action where proof by a preponderance of the probabilities is required,

(a) a rebuttable presumption requires the tribunal of fact to assume the existence of the presumed fact, unless the party against whom the presumption operates proves that the non-existence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence;

(b) when evidence is not introduced contrary to the existence of the presumed fact, the question of the existence of the presumed fact depends upon the existence of the basic facts that give rise to the presumption and is determined as follows:

(i) if reasonable minds would necessarily agree that the evidence renders the existence of the basic facts more probable than not, the Court shall find, or direct the jury to find, in favour of the existence of the presumed fact; or

(ii) if reasonable minds would necessarily agree that the evidence does not render the existence of the basic facts more probable than not, the Court shall find, or direct the jury to find, against the existence of the presumed fact; or

(iii) if reasonable minds would not necessarily agree as to whether the evidence renders the existence of the basic facts more probable than not, the Court shall find, or submit the matter to the jury with an instruction that it shall find, in favour of the existence of the presumed fact if it finds from the evidence that the existence of the basic facts is more probable than not, but otherwise, it shall find against the existence of the presumed fact;

(c) where evidence is introduced contrary to the existence of the presumed fact, when reasonable minds would necessarily agree that the evidence renders the existence of the basic facts that give rise to the presumption more probable than not, the question of the existence of the presumed fact is determined as follows:

(i) if reasonable minds would necessarily agree that the evidence renders the non-existence of the presumed fact more probable than not, the Court shall find, or direct the jury to find, against the existence of the presumed fact; or

(ii) if reasonable minds would necessarily agree that the evidence does not render the non-existence of the presumed fact more probable than not, the Court shall find, or direct the jury to find, in favour of the presumed fact; or

(iii) if reasonable minds would not necessarily agree as to whether the evidence renders the non-existence of the presumed fact more probable than not, the Court shall find, or submit the matter to the jury with an instruction that it shall find, in favour of the existence of the presumed fact unless it finds from the evidence that the non-existence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence, in which case it shall find against the existence of the presumed fact;

(d) where evidence as to the existence of the basic facts that give rise to the presumption is of a nature that reasonable minds would not necessarily agree whether their existence is more probable than not and evidence as to the non-existence of the presumed fact is such that they would not necessarily agree that its non-existence is more probable than not, the Court shall find, or submit the matter to the jury with an instruction that it shall find, in favour of the existence of the presumed fact if it finds from the evidence that the existence of the basic facts is more probable than not and it does not find the non-existence of the presumed fact more probable than not, but otherwise it shall find against the existence of the presumed fact.