R. v. Oakes (1986)

Official citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103

Court: Supreme Court of Canada

Judges: Dickson, Robert George Brian; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; Le Dain, Gerald Eric Date of Judgement: 1986-02-28

Parties Involved:

• Appellant: Her Majesty The Queen
• Respondent: David Edwin Oakes

Introduction

The case is both a criminal and constitutional law case brought before the Supreme Court of Canada. It addresses a criminal charge of possession of a narcotic for trafficking under the Narcotic Control Act. Specifically, the case challenges the constitutionality of Section 8 of the Act, which creates a reverse onus presumption, whereby a person found in possession of illegal drugs is presumed to be trafficking, unless they can prove otherwise.

The key constitutional issue is whether the reverse onus provision violates the presumption of innocence guaranteed under Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects an individual’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The case further explores whether the infringement of this right can be justified under Section 1 of the Charter, which allows reasonable limits on Charter rights if those limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The appellant, Her Majesty the Queen, argued that the reverse onus provision was a necessary tool to combat drug trafficking and protect public safety. The respondent, David Edwin Oakes, challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing that it infringed upon his fundamental rights under the Charter and could not be justified.

Facts

In 1981, the respondent was stopped by police and found in possession of a small quantity of hashish oil and $619.45 in cash. He was charged with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking under Section 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act.

Oakes admitted to possessing the narcotic but stated it was solely for personal use, denying any intent to traffic. However, under Section 8 of the Act, once possession was established, the law presumed intent to traffic, placing the responsibility on the accused to prove they had no intent to traffic, based on the balance of probabilities.

Oakes challenged the constitutionality of this reverse onus provision, arguing it violated Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the presumption of innocence. He further submitted that this infringement could not be justified under Section 1 of the Charter, which permits only reasonable limits on protected rights.

The case proceeded through the courts and was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court of Canada, which was asked to determine whether Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act was consistent with the Charter.

Issues Raised

The case raised two issues before the Supreme Court of Canada:

1. Whether Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act infringes Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right of any person charged with an offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
2. If a violation of Section 11(d) is found, it can be justified under Section 1 of the Charter, which allows reasonable limits to be placed on Charter rights and freedoms, provided such limits are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant:

The Crown argued that Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act was a necessary and effective legal mechanism for addressing the serious issue of drug trafficking. The provision presumed that a person in possession of a narcotic intended to traffic it, placing the burden on the accused to disprove this presumption. According to the Crown, this reverse onus clause was justified because it addressed the practical difficulties in proving intent in drug-related offences.

The appellant submitted that any infringement of Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the presumption of innocence, was a reasonable limit under Section 1 of the Charter. The Crown maintained that the law had a pressing and substantial objective, was rationally connected to that objective, and served an important public interest in controlling the distribution of illegal drugs.

Respondent:

The respondent challenged the constitutionality of section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, arguing that it violated his Charter right under Section 11(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Oakes contended that the reverse onus provision improperly shifted the burden of proof from the Crown to the accused, allowing a conviction without requiring the prosecution to prove intent to traffic beyond a reasonable doubt.

He argued that the presumption created by the law was not logically connected to the proven fact of possession, particularly in cases where the quantity of the drug was small and consistent with personal use. Furthermore, Oakes maintained that the infringement could not be justified under Section 1 of the Charter, as the measure was not minimally impairing and posed a risk of wrongful conviction, thereby undermining a fundamental principle of criminal justice.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act violated Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and was not a reasonable limit under Section 1.

The Court found that the reverse onus provision unjustifiably infringed the presumption of innocence, as it allowed for a conviction without the Crown having to prove all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, it permitted a finding of guilt for intent to traffic relying only on proof of possession, which puts the burden of proof on the accused.

The Court ruled that while the legislative objective of combatting drug trafficking was pressing and substantial, the means chosen were not proportionate. The presumption created by Section 8 lacked a rational connection to the presumed fact of intent to traffic and was not minimally impairing of the Charter right.

As a result, the Court declared Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act of no force or effect under Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, and reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal justice in Canada.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the reverse onus provision in Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act violated the presumption of innocence protected under Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court emphasized that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental legal principle in Canadian criminal law, which requires the Crown to prove every essential element of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Any provision that permits a conviction in the absence of such proof is constitutionally suspect.

Chief Justice Dickson, writing for a unanimous Court, found that the reverse onus provision transferred the responsibility to prove the intent to traffic from the Crown to the accused. The Court concluded that this created a significant risk of convicting the innocent, particularly where the amount of the drug possessed may be consistent with personal use.

In applying Section 1 of the Charter, the Court developed the Oakes Test, a legal framework used to determine whether a Charter infringement can be justified as a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society.

The test involves two main steps:

1. The objective of the legislation must be pressing and substantial.
2. The means chosen must be proportionate, which requires:

• a rational connection between the law and its objective
• minimal impairment of the right
• proportionality between the law’s effects and its objective

Although the Court acknowledged that the objective of combatting drug trafficking was pressing and substantial, it found that Section 8 failed the proportionality analysis. Specifically, there was no rational connection between mere possession and intent to traffic in all cases. Furthermore, the provision did not minimally impair the right to be presumed innocent, as less intrusive alternatives were available.

Conclusion

R v Oakes is a landmark decision in Canadian constitutional law that established the Oakes Test, the foundational framework for determining whether a limitation on a Charter right can be justified under section 1. The case reinforced the presumption of innocence as a core principle of criminal justice and clarified the limits of legislative power in shifting the burden of proof in criminal proceedings. Its ruling had far-reaching implications for both criminal law and Charter interpretation, setting a high standard for justifying rights infringements and ensuring individual liberties are protected even in the face of pressing social concerns such as drug trafficking. The decision remains a guiding precedent in Canadian constitutional jurisprudence and underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to upholding the integrity of the Charter in a free and democratic society.