R. v. Oakes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| R. v. Oakes | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|||||||||
| Hearing: March 12, 1985 Judgment: February 28, 1986 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||
| Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act violates the right to presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cannot be saved under section 1 of the Charter. | |||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||
|
Chief Justice: Brian Dickson |
|||||||||
| Reasons given | |||||||||
|
Majority by: Dickson C.J. (paras. 1-81) |
|||||||||
R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103 is a case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada which established the famous Oakes test, an analysis of the limitations clause (Section 1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if it can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Contents |
[edit] Background
An individual named David Edwin Oakes was caught with vials of hash oil as well as $619.45. Accordingly, he was charged with intended trafficking, under s.4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act (NCA), despite Oakes' protests that the vials were meant for pain relief and that the money he had was from a $666 workers' compensation cheque.
Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act provided for a shift in onus onto the accused to prove that he was not in possession for the purpose of trafficking. Oakes made a constitutional challenge, claiming that the reverse onus created by the presumption of possession for purposes of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence guarantee under section 11(d) of the Charter.
The sole issue before the Court was whether s.8 of the NCA was constitutional.
[edit] Court's reasons
The Court was unanimous in holding that the shift in onus violated both Oakes's section 11(d) rights and indirectly his section 7 rights, and could not be justified under section 1 of the charter. Moreover, there was no rational connection between basic possession and the presumption of trafficking, and therefore the shift in onus is not related to the previous challenge to section 11(d) of the charter.
The Court described the exceptional criteria under which rights could be justifiably limited under section 1. The Court identified two main functions of section 1. First, "it guarantees the rights which follow it", and secondly, it "states the criteria against which justifications for limitations on those rights must be measured".
The key values of the Charter come from the phrase "free and democratic society" and should be used as the "ultimate standard" for interpretation of section 1. These include values such as:
- respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.
Charter rights are not absolute and it is necessary to limit them in order to achieve "collective goals of fundamental importance".
The Court presents a two step test to justify a limitation based on the analysis in R. v. Big M Drug Mart. First, it must be "an objective relate to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society", and second it must be shown "that the means chosen are reasonable and demonstrably justified".
The second part is described as a "proportionality test" which requires the invoking party to show:
- First, the measures adopted must be carefully designed to achieve the objective in question. They must not be arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations. In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective. Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair "as little as possible" the right or freedom in question. Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of "sufficient importance".
In applying this test to the facts the Court found that section 8 does not pass the rational connection test as the "possession of a small or negligible quantity of narcotics does not support the inference of trafficking ... it would be irrational to infer that a person had an intent to traffic on the basis of his or her possession of a very small quantity of narcotics." Therefore, section 8 of the Narcotics Control Act is in violation of the Charter and is of no force or effect.
[edit] Commentary
This was the most important case in considering the application of section 1 of the Charter and was used as a test case to set the foundation for the Courts to analyze the Charter. The test developed in this case has since gone through significant evolution due to subsequent case law; however, the test has remained fundamentally the same.
