How have the courts interpreted the evidentiary presumptions in the context of an allegation of intent to pervert the course of justice?

With respect to both of these rebuttable evidentiary presumptions, Justice Savage in Namdarpour v. Vahman, 2019 BCCA 153 at para. 40 stated: 40 These decisions emphasize that evidentiary presumptions operate only where the trial judge is unable to reach a conclusion about the transferor's actual intention at the time of transfer. In my view, the following principles can be discerned from the case law: (1) a conclusion about intention is only to be determined after consideration of "all the circumstances" of the case; (2) those circumstances include both direct evidence and, importantly, circumstantial evidence; (3) those circumstances include evidence that arose subsequent to a transfer if r levant to the transferor's intent at the time of transfer, although such evidence will be reviewed critically; and (4) only where a judge is unable to reach a conclusion about the transferor's actual intention will the evidentiary presumption operate.