Breaking and entering with intent, committing offence or breaking out: "Evidence to the contrary" in Breaking and entering with intent would have to be full exculpatory evidence. There is no doubt that evidence to satisfy the reasonable and probable grounds that the accused committed the offence may also be enough evidence to convict. However, if it is not enough evidence it is because the accused in his defence may have exculpatory evidence that is contrary to the inculpatory evidence that accuses him and questions whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. Evidence to the contrary in traffic matters involving redlight cameras is tested on a balance of probability as the redlight camera and the computer cannot prove who is driving the vehicle. If you have any evidence that says you are not the driver responsible for the $325.00 offence, the Court accepts the evidence with little vetting as long as it is properly presented well-meaning evidence that does not amount to perjury. Click here for more.

Breaking and entering with intent, committing offence or breaking out:  "Evidence to the contrary" in Breaking and entering with intent would have to be full exculpatory evidence.   There is no doubt that evidence to satisfy the reasonable and probable grounds that the accused committed the offence may also be enough evidence to convict.  However, if it is not enough evidence it is because the accused in his defence may have exculpatory evidence that is contrary to the inculpatory evidence that accuses him and questions whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.  Evidence to the contrary in traffic matters involving redlight cameras is tested on a balance of probability as the redlight camera and the computer  cannot prove who is driving the vehicle.  If you have any evidence that says you are not the driver responsible for the $325.00 offence, the Court accepts the evidence with little vetting as long as it is properly presented well-meaning evidence that does not  amount to perjury. Click here for more. 

Breaking and entering with intent, committing offence or breaking out

• 348 (1) Every one who
  • (a) breaks and enters a place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,
  • (b) breaks and enters a place and commits an indictable offence therein, or
  • (c) breaks out of a place after
    • (i) committing an indictable offence therein, or
    • (ii) entering the place with intent to commit an indictable offence therein,
  is guilty
  • (d) if the offence is committed in relation to a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life, and
  • (e) if the offence is committed in relation to a place other than a dwelling-house, of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
• Marginal note:Presumptions
  (2) For the purposes of proceedings under this section, evidence that an accused
  • (a) broke and entered a place or attempted to break and enter a place is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof that he broke and entered the place or attempted to do so, as the case may be, with intent to commit an indictable offence therein; or
  • (b) broke out of a place is, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, proof that he broke out after
    • (i) committing an indictable offence therein, or
    • (ii) entering with intent to commit an indictable offence therein.
• Marginal note:Definition of place

• (3) For the purposes of this section and section 351, place means
  • (a) a dwelling-house;
  • (b) a building or structure or any part thereof, other than a dwelling-house;
  • (c) a railway vehicle, a vessel, an aircraft or a trailer; or
  • (d) a pen or an enclosure in which fur-bearing animals are kept in captivity for breeding or commercial purposes.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 348
 
• R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st