R. v. Oakes
Encyclopedia
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.
(NCA), despite Oakes' protests that the vials were meant for pain relief and that the money he had was from a 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 based on a balance of probabilities between the rights of the accused and the interests of society.
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:
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 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:
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.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
which established the famous Oakes test, an analysis of the limitations clause (Section 1)
Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section One of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Charter that confirms that the rights listed in that document are guaranteed. The section is also known as the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to limit an...
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if it can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Background
An individual named David Edwin Oakes was caught with 8 vials of hashish oil which he claimed he had purchased for $150 for his own use as well as $619.45 (Dimensions of Law, Canadian and International Law in the 21st Century, 2004). Accordingly, he was charged with intended trafficking, under s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control ActNarcotic Control Act
The Narcotic Control 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 Narcotic Drugs.-References:...
(NCA), despite Oakes' protests that the vials were meant for pain relief and that the money he had was from a 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
Reverse onus
A reverse onus clause is a provision within a statute that shifts the burden of proof on to the individual specified to disprove an element of the information. Typically, this provision concerns a shift in burden onto a defendant in either a criminal offence or tort claim...
created by the presumption of possession for purposes of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence
Presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many...
guarantee under section 11(d)
Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution's Charter of Rights that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. This includes both criminal as well as regulatory offences, as it provides rights for those accused by...
of the Charter.
The sole issue before the Court was whether s. 8 of the NCA was constitutional based on a balance of probabilities between the rights of the accused and the interests of society.
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 7Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Seven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section, namely the right to life, liberty, and...
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. First, it must be "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 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.