{"id":25119,"date":"2022-06-16T12:00:56","date_gmt":"2022-06-16T16:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.rsslex.com\/?p=25119"},"modified":"2022-07-11T13:20:00","modified_gmt":"2022-07-11T17:20:00","slug":"evidence-by-presumption-utility-and-pitfalls","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rsslex.com\/en\/webinars\/evidence-by-presumption-utility-and-pitfalls\/","title":{"rendered":"Evidence by Presumption: Utility and Pitfalls"},"content":{"rendered":"

This webinar was presented on June 16, 2022, as part of our firm\u2019s annual lectures on insurance law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Description<\/h2>\n

Property is stolen in a warehouse while the alarm system, unexplainably, was down. There is a suspect, an employee, but no one has seen him deactivate the alarm system or carry the property. Can we assume that he is a party to the theft simply because any other explanation must be ruled out?<\/p>\n

This would be a case of proof by presumption, a method of adducing evidence ruled by most succinct rules in the Civil Code of Qu\u00e9bec<\/em>, the key ones being:<\/p>\n

2846. A presumption is an inference drawn by the law or the court from a known fact to an unknown fact.<\/p>\n

2849. Presumptions which are not established by law are left to the discretion of the court which shall take only serious, precise and concordant presumptions into consideration.<\/p>\n

How can we figure out such a tersely-worded rule in the face of a virtually unlimited variety of inferences?<\/p>\n

Please contact our speaker, Patrick Henry<\/a><\/strong>, for additional information on this topic.<\/p>\n