Court may presume existence of certain fact
116.  The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
Illustrations
     The court may presume —
(a)that an individual who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless the individual can account for his or her possession;
(b)that an accomplice is unworthy of credit and his or her evidence needs to be treated with caution;
(c)that a bill of exchange accepted or endorsed was accepted or endorsed for good consideration;
(d)that a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or states of things usually cease to exist is still in existence;
(e)that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed;
(f)that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases;
(g)that evidence which could be and is not produced would if produced be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;
(h)that if an individual refuses to answer a question which the individual is not compelled to answer by law, the answer if given would be unfavourable to him or her;
(i)that when a document creating an obligation is in the hands of the obligor the obligation has been discharged.
     But the court is also to have regard to such facts as the following in considering whether such maxims do or do not apply to the particular case before it:
     as to illustration (a)—a shop-keeper has in his or her till a marked dollar soon after it was stolen and cannot account for its possession specifically but is continually receiving dollars in the course of his or her business:
     as to illustration (b)—A, a person of the highest character is tried for causing a man’s death by an act of negligence in arranging certain machinery. B, a person of equally good character, who also took part in the arrangement, describes precisely what was done and admits and explains the common carelessness of A and B:
     as to illustration (b)—a crime is committed by several persons. A, B and C, 3 of the criminals, are captured on the spot and kept apart from each other. Each gives an account of the crime implicating D, and the accounts corroborate each other in such a manner as to render previous concert highly improbable:
     as to illustration (c)—A, the drawer of a bill of exchange, was a man of business. B, the acceptor, was a young and ignorant person completely under A’s influence:
     as to illustration (d)—it is proved that a river ran in a certain course 5 years ago, but it is known that there have been floods since that time which might change its course:
     as to illustration (e)—a judicial act, the regularity of which is in question, was performed under exceptional circumstances:
     as to illustration (f)—the question is whether a letter was received. It is shown to have posted, but the usual course of the post was interrupted by disturbances:
     as to illustration (g)—an individual refuses to produce a document which would bear on a contract of small importance on which the individual is sued, but which might also injure the feeling and reputation of his or her family:
     as to illustration (h)—an individual refuses to answer a question which the individual is not compelled by law to answer, but the answer to it might cause loss to him or her in matters unconnected with the matter in relation to which it is asked:
     as to illustration (i)—a bond is in possession of the obligor, but the circumstances of the case are such that he or she may have stolen it.