R. V. Oakes - Court's Reasons

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. 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.

Read more about this topic:  R. V. Oakes

Famous quotes containing the words court and/or reasons:

    Follow a shaddow, it still flies you;
    Seeme to flye it, it will pursue:
    So court a mistris, shee denyes you;
    Let her alone, shee will court you.
    Say, are not women truely, then,
    Stil’d but the shaddowes of us men?
    At morne, and even, shades are longest;
    At noone, they are or short, or none:
    So men at weakest, they are strongest,
    But grant us perfect, they’re not knowne.
    Say, are not women truely, then,
    Stil’d but the shaddowes of us men?
    Ben Jonson (1572–1637)

    It’s an old trick now, God knows, but it works every time. At the very moment women start to expand their place in the world, scientific studies deliver compelling reasons for them to stay home.
    Mary Kay Blakely (20th century)