R v Oakes, [1986] 1 SCR 103, 1986 CanLII 46, paras 69–70.
Misha Abdul Matin
LSOU Publications
August 19, 2023
Terms:
Onus: the responsibility
In this case, the responsibility over burden of proof
Reverse Onus: when the responsibility over burden of proof is reversed, and the accused has to prove that they are innocent.
S. 4, Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act:
Section 8 states that if a person is found in possession of a drug, it is assumed that there is an intent to traffick the drug, unless he can prove his innocence.
S.11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Presumption of Innocence
States that any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal
Two requirements must be met:
The accused must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
The crown must carry the burden of proof, to establish that the accused is guilty
Facts:
In December of 1981, David Oakes, a 23 year old construction worker, had been arrested by police in London, Ontario for the possession of narcotics. At the time of the arrest, Oakes was carrying ten vials, each holding one gram of hashish oil that cost a total of $150 and $619.45 in cash. This led to a charge for the unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking under s.4 of the Narcotic Control Act. However, Oakes claims that the drugs were meant to aid him in pain relief from a workplace accident, and that the cash had come from a worker’s compensation cheque. In this case, Oakes had unlawful possession of narcotics, but argues that he had no intent to participate in drug trafficking. As a charge for drug trafficking could lead to life imprisonment, Oakes opened up a legal dispute.
Procedural Posture and Issues:
Oakes holds the position that the charges against him violate section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states he is innocent until proven guilty. In this case, it is the crown’s onus to prove that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Oakes had been arrested for possession under s.4 of the narcotic control act, and section 8 of this act states, if caught guilty of possession, the accused is assumed to be a trafficker unless he could prove his innocence. This is the reverse onus, which leaves the burden of proof in the hands of the accused, and they must defend their innocence. To clarify, this is a case in which the law infringes on a charter right. The lower court supported Oake's position that his charter right had been violated. However, the crown appealed, and held the position that his charter right had not been violated. The appeal court also found that the law violated s.11 (d), but that reverse onus could be valid if it placed a reasonable limit of the right, and that it was justified in a free, democratic society. This case did not meet these requirements. Finally, the crown appealed to the supreme court in 1985, who accepted the case. The supreme court ruled that the law imposed a reverse onus, and that it was unconstitutional.
Rule Applied:
This led to the creation of the “Oakes Test”, which outlined a list of requirements that must be met to justify a law imposing a charter right. First, the infringement must be fair and arbitrary. Second, the law must minimise its infringement of charter rights, while obtaining an important objective. Third, an emphasis is placed on proportionality, a severe limit on one’s charter right, can be justified by the achievement of a severely important objective. The case of R. V. Oakes does not pass the Oakes Test. While the law is fair and arbitrary, and achieving an important goal, the last criteria is not met.
Holding and Reasoning
The Supreme court of Canada ruled the law to be unconstitutional as it violated s.11(D) of the charter of rights and freedoms, and the appeal was dismissed. This meant that Oakes had been charged with possession, as they had found him carrying narcotics, but had not been charged with drug trafficking.
Result:
R. V. Oakes was a landmark case in Canadian law that established the “Oakes test” for determining the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court of Canada set out a two-step test to determine if a law violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The test requires that a law be rationally connected to a pressing and substantial objective, and that the means chosen to achieve the objective must be proportional. It’s an important case that continues to influence legal decisions in Canada.
Bibliography
Beaudoin, Gérald A.. "Oakes Case (R v. Oakes)." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada. February 07, 2006.
Government of Canada, Department of Justice. “Section 11(d) – Presumption of Innocence.” Charterpedia, June 29, 2023. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art11d.html#:~:text=Section%2011(d)%20protects%20the,be%20proved%2C%20will%20be%20fair.
“R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103.” R. V. Oakes - SCC cases. Accessed August 16, 2023. https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/117/index.do.
Comments