''R v Oakes'' 9861 SCR 103 is a case decided by the

Supreme Court of Canada The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC; french: Cour suprême du Canada, CSC) is the Supreme court, highest court in the Court system of Canada, judicial system of Canada. It comprises List of Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, nine justices, wh ...

which established the famous ''Oakes'' test, an analysis of the limitations clause (section 1) of the ''

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' (french: Charte canadienne des droits et libertés), often simply referred to as the ''Charter'' in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part ...

'' that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if the limitation is motivated by a "pressing and substantial objective" and can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."''R v Oakes'' 9861 SCR 103, 1986

CanLII The Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII; french: Institut canadien d'information juridique) is a non-profit organization created and funded by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada in 2001 on behalf of its 14 member societies. CanLI ...

46 a
paras 69–70

Background

Oakes made a Charter challenge, claiming that the

reverse onus A reverse onus clause is a provision within a statute that shifts the burden of proof onto the individual specified to disprove an element of the information. Typically, this particular provision concerns a shift in burden onto a defendant in eith ...

created by the presumption of possession for purposes of trafficking violated the

presumption of innocence The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must presen ...

guarantee under section 11(d) of the Charter. The issues before the Court were whether section 8 of the

Narcotic Control Act The ''Narcotic Control Act'' (the ''Act''), passed in 1961, was one of Canada's national drug control statutes prior to its repeal by the 1996 ''Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.'' It implemented the provisions of the Single Convention on Nar ...

violated section 11(d) of the Charter and whether any violation of section 11(d) could be upheld under section 1.

Court's reasons

The Court was unanimous in holding that the shift in onus violated both Oakes' section 11(d) rights and indirectly his section 7 rights, and could not be justified under section 1 of the ''Charter''. This was because 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 Ltd''. First, the limitation must be motivated by "an objective related 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 did not pass the rational connection test because 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 Narcotic Control Act was held to be in violation of the ''Charter'' and therefore of no force or effect.

References

External links

*
Full text access
to over 1100 Canadian court decisions citing R. v. Oakes, sorted by most influential case {{DEFAULTSORT:Oakes Supreme Court of Canada cases Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case law 1986 in Canadian case law Canadian criminal case law