No, you're not fucking following it correctly i've written it 3 times but you're too thick to read because "its subjective bull shit" when I've quoted your own links with supreme court documents... So to start AGAIN... I GOT HANDCUFFED, NOT ARRESTED. I DID NOT GO TO JAIL. I WAS RELEASED WITHIN 30 MINUTES FROM HIS CAR. GOT summoned to court for 2 weeks from that time and spent $0 to have the prosecutor tell me when I arrived (in her own office, not sitting at a court table) based off of the charge of "possession of a schedule 2 drug" with no amount on it that my options are take to court and fight it, or do 20 hours community service and a work book. I TOOK IT TO COURT. SO ALREADY I HAVE SPENT 0 DOLLARS AND HAVE DONE NO COMMUNITY SERVICE. Following? doubt it but lets pretend. (not sure if you know how canadian courts go for minor things but you all take your turn. It's NOT american court buddy. no jurors at this stage. ) 6 months later my trial date comes up and I go to the same court house and again meet the same prosecutor and said that I would not be accepting the charges and defending my argument that i was not in the operators seat, in front of my own house, with keys locked in my backpack and i was going inside straight after.
And based off of the SAME article you linked earlier
>
The presumption is established by proving that the seat was occupied at the time the accused entered the vehicle, not simply when the accused was found.[1] This presumption can be rebutted by calling evidence that the driver's seat was not occupied for the purpose of operating the vehicle on the balance of probabilities.[2]
If the presumption has been rebutted, the accused may still be convicted where there was a danger that the accused could have put the vehicle in motion. [3]
Dangers include the risk of the vehicle being set in motion unintentionally, negligently, or intentionally where the driver changes his or her mind not to drive.[4]Where an accused was found in a stationary vehicle, it is not necessary for the Crown to prove that the accused intended to set the vehicle in motion.[5]
The Crown however must establish that the accused performed "some act or series of acts involving the use of the car, its fittings or equipment...whereby the vehicle may unintentionally be set in motion creating the danger the section is designed to prevent.”[6] The key to the determination is the risk of setting the vehicle in motion and become dangerous.[7]
The determination is highly contextual and so the "[c]ircumstances in which acts of care and control may be found will vary widely."[8]
The presumption will be in effect even where the driver's seat has been fully reclined.[9]
The presumption will not be available where the accused is sleeping across the front seats.[10]
Evidence that the vehicle is immobile is not generally sufficient to rebut the presumption.[11]
Where the presumption is engaged, it is not necessary to establish a risk was set out in Wren.[12] It is not relevant whether the vehicle is immobile.[13]
If the accused is unconscious following an accident it is "impossible" to rebut this presumption.[14]
if you read ANYTHING I've written tonight you wouldn't sound so stupid