R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103

R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103 The Facts: In 1981 David Edwin Oakes, a 23-year-old construction worker, was approached by police outside a tavern in London, Ontario.  They found eight one-gram vials of hashish oil worth $150 and $619.45 in cash on him.   He was charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, under the then Narcotic Control Act.  Oakes said that he bought ten vials of hashish oil for personal use for $150 and that the $619.45 was from a workers’ compensation cheque.

Oakes claimed that the drugs in his possession were for purely personal use to relieve his pain from a workplace accident.  He said the money was from having recently cashed his worker’s compensation cheque.

Oakes’ position was that the reverse onus in section 8 of the Narcotics Control Act violated the presumption of innocence contained in section 11(d) of the new Charter.  Even if the reverse onus did violate the constitutional presumption of innocence, could that violation be excused by section 1 of the Charter?  

R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103 The Supreme Court said: s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act is in violation of s. 11(d) of the Charter Why? Because it forces the accused to disprove a presumed fact without allowing for reasonable doubt However, Justice Brian Dickson acknowledged that rationally connecting a presumed fact to a basic fact is a fair way to justify a law under s. 1 of the Charter s. 8 eliminates mens rea as a factor, which goes against the two basic components of any crime: actus reus and mens rea. Criminal cases also require for people to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In Oakes’ instance, a presumed fact (trafficking) was automatically connected to a basic fact (possession) even though there is the logical possibility that the connection does not exist.

R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103 This case was especially important for three reasons: Explicitly articulated how our rights can be legally limited Created a precedent which has been used in countless cases since Contributed greatly to the politicization of the judiciary since the Oakes test asks judges to evaluate the merits of legislation

R. v. Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103 Questions: What is the most political part of the Oakes test – whether the objective of a law is pressing and substantial, or whether the costs of a law weigh less than its benefits? Does the Oakes test mean that those who argue that the court unfairly infringes upon the decisions of our elected officials are right? Q1: The textbook explains that judges tend to concentrate more on cost-benefit analysis than whether the law is pressing and substantial. Q1: It also explains that they must compare the current legislation to better alternatives.