THE CHARTER:

R v. Oakes pg. 39 Question One Oakes was charged with the unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.

Question Two Once the Crown proved that Oakes had drugs in his possession, the burden of proof switched to Oakes to prove that he did not have the drugs for the purpose of trafficking. Oakes argued that when this burden of proof switched to him, he was denied his right under section 11(d) of the Charter to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Once the Crown proved that Oakes had drugs in his possession, the burden of proof switched to Oakes to prove that he did not have the drugs for the purpose of trafficking. Oakes argued that when this burden of proof switched to him, he was denied his right under section 11(d) of the Charter to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Question Four Chief Justice Dickson commented: “Mr. Oakes is compelled by section 8 to prove he is not guilty of the offence of trafficking. He is thus denied his right to be presumed innocent and subjected to the potential penalty of Chief Justice Dickson commented: “Mr. Oakes is compelled by section 8 to prove he is not guilty of the offence of trafficking. He is thus denied his right to be presumed innocent and subjected to the potential penalty of

Question Four life imprisonment unless he can rebut the presumption.” Given the fact that an accused can face a prison sentence, it is important that the Crown face the heavy burden of proof that the accused committed the crime. Student responses will vary about the reasons Canadian society values the presumption of innocence so highly. life imprisonment unless he can rebut the presumption.” Given the fact that an accused can face a prison sentence, it is important that the Crown face the heavy burden of proof that the accused committed the crime. Student responses will vary about the reasons Canadian society values the presumption of innocence so highly.

History of the Charter Before 1982, Canada had the Canadian Bill of Rights. Although it was a step in the right direction, the Bill of Rights did not protect people completely. Under the Bill of Rights, a person could challenge another piece of legislature, however nothing prevented government officials from amending, appealing or simply overriding the bill. Also, no new legislation (before 1982) had to follow this bill, protecting the rights of those involved. Before 1982, Canada had the Canadian Bill of Rights. Although it was a step in the right direction, the Bill of Rights did not protect people completely. Under the Bill of Rights, a person could challenge another piece of legislature, however nothing prevented government officials from amending, appealing or simply overriding the bill. Also, no new legislation (before 1982) had to follow this bill, protecting the rights of those involved.

Enter Charter… The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced to Canadian law in 1982 under the reign of Prime Minister of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. As a part of Canada’s new formal Constitution, every law in the country, past, present or future, had to conform to the provisions in the Charter. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was introduced to Canadian law in 1982 under the reign of Prime Minister of Pierre Elliot Trudeau. As a part of Canada’s new formal Constitution, every law in the country, past, present or future, had to conform to the provisions in the Charter.

The Charter: first few sections 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Translation: There is little to nothing above this document

Fundamental Freedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a. freedom of conscience and religion b. freedom of though, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication c. freedom of peaceful assembly; and d. freedom of association

Democratic Rights 3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein. Translation: Everyone over a certain age can both vote and run for government.

Democratic Rights Cont’ed 4.(1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members. 4. (2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuance is not opposed by the votes of more than one third of the members of the House of Commons or legislative assembly, as the case may be.

Democratic Rights Cont’ed Translation: 4(1). The government has a limited term of 5 years. This means that 5 years after that government gets in, they have to call an election. 4(2). In drastic times, the government may run longer. An example of this would be during war time. It is not a good idea to hold an election in the middle of a world war.

Democratic Rights Cont’ed 5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and each legislature at least once every twelve months Translation: The government must sit in the House of Commons at least once a year.

Mobility Rights 6(1). Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. 6(2). Every citizen of Canada and every persons who has the status of a permanent residence of Canada has the right: a. to move and take up residence in any province; and b. to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

Mobility Rights Cont’ed (3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to: a. any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and b. any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.

Mobility Rights Cont’ed (4). Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program, or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.

Mobility Right’s Cont’ed Translation of section 6: -every Canadian citizen/permanent resident has the right to move inside of Canada to other provinces and may work there -there are 3 limitations on this right that are related to the idea of provincial programs (eg. you have to live in a province for so long before accepting social services or the workplace can hire a specific kind of person before another if they are disadvantaged in comparison to the overall rate in Canada.)

Multani v. Commission scolaire Read the case on page 41 Read the case on page 41

Answers The person seeking a remedy in court must establish The person seeking a remedy in court must establish That he or she sincerely believes in the practice or belief that has a connection with religion That he or she sincerely believes in the practice or belief that has a connection with religion That his or her ability with the practice or religious belief is being interfered with, and the interference is not trivial That his or her ability with the practice or religious belief is being interfered with, and the interference is not trivial

Question 2 The Québec Superior Court ruled that Multani be allowed to wear the kirpan to school as long as it was wrapped in cloth and a wooden sheath and concealed under his clothes. School offi cials would be allowed to conduct reasonable inspections to ensure that conditions were being followed. If conditions were not followed, Multani would lose the right to wear the kirpan. The Québec Superior Court ruled that Multani be allowed to wear the kirpan to school as long as it was wrapped in cloth and a wooden sheath and concealed under his clothes. School offi cials would be allowed to conduct reasonable inspections to ensure that conditions were being followed. If conditions were not followed, Multani would lose the right to wear the kirpan.

Question 3 The Québec Court of Appeal ruled against Multani, holding that while his right to freedom of religion was being infringed, it was not possible to accommodate Mr. Multani without compromising the school’s security rules. They upheld the ban on kirpans. The Québec Court of Appeal ruled against Multani, holding that while his right to freedom of religion was being infringed, it was not possible to accommodate Mr. Multani without compromising the school’s security rules. They upheld the ban on kirpans.

Question 4 The Supreme Court commented in its decision that accommodating Multani and allowing him to wear his kirpan under certain conditions demonstrates the importance that our society places on protecting freedom of religion and showing respect to minority cultures. Students will discuss the value of religious freedom and how it is weighed against safety concerns. The Supreme Court commented in its decision that accommodating Multani and allowing him to wear his kirpan under certain conditions demonstrates the importance that our society places on protecting freedom of religion and showing respect to minority cultures. Students will discuss the value of religious freedom and how it is weighed against safety concerns.

Question 4- Con’t Some students may argue that religious freedom is paramount in showing respect and tolerance for all cultures. Others may argue hat safety should be the utmost concern in a school environment. Some students may argue that religious freedom is paramount in showing respect and tolerance for all cultures. Others may argue hat safety should be the utmost concern in a school environment.