The accused argues that in the absence of this presumption the Crown must prove one of three things, all of which it failed to do: i. That there is a risk the vehicle may unintentionally be set in motion, ii. That he left the vehicle in a dangerous position (it is admitted this was not the case here), iii. Or that there was a significant probability that the person who has decided not to drive will change his mind. (R v. Bernatsky, [2007] 61 M.V.R. (5th) 15 ¶ 13).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.