Question

r. v. oakes, 1986 1 s.c.r. 103
oakes was charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. when the judge found him guilty of possession of hashish oil, oakes brought a motion challenging the constitutional validity of s. 8 of the narcotic control act, r.s.c., 1970, which stated:
... if the court finds that the accused was in possession of the narcotic... he shall be given an opportunity of establishing that he was not in possession... for the purpose of trafficking...
oakes argued that s. 8 of the narcotic control act violated the presumption of innocence contained in s. 11(d) of the charter:
any person charged with an offence has the right...
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal
both the trial judge and the ontario court of appeal upheld oakess charter claim. the court of appeal wrote that the
everse onus\ (placing the burden of proof on the accused to disprove an essential element of an offence) in s. 8 of the narcotic control act was unconstitutional. however, justice martin of the court of appeal wrote that some reverse onus provisions may be constitutionally valid provided they satisfy two conditions: they constitute
easonable limitations\ on the right to be presumed innocent and are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society according to s. 1 of the charter of rights and freedoms.
the crown appealed to the supreme court of canada. the courts decision stressed the importance of the principle of presumption of innocence by noting its inclusion in the canadian bill of rights. the supreme court agreed that \it may become necessary to limit rights and freedoms in circumstances where their exercise would be inimical opposed to the realization of collective goals of fundamental importance to the people of canada.\ the court established the following four criteria for
easonable limits\ and then applied them to the case:

1. the reason for limiting the charter right must be shown to be important enough to justify overriding a constitutionally protected right.
2. the measure carried out to limit the right must be reasonable and logically connected to the objective for which it was enacted.
3. the right must be limited as little as possible.
4. the more severe the rights limitation, the more important the objective must be.

the court found that the first criterion was satisfied. the second, however, was not; the possession of a small quantity of narcotics does not logically lead to the conclusion that trafficking is the intention. the appeal against oakes was dismissed.

1. state in your own words the meaning of

everse onus.\ why was the reverse onus in s. 8 of the narcotic control act found to be contrary to the charter?

1. what reason could be considered important enough to satisfy the first criterion used to justify limiting a right?
2. does the third criterion apply to this case? is it possible to partially limit the right to be presumed innocent? explain.

Explanation:

1. "Reverse onus" means the burden of proof is on the accused to disprove an essential element of an offence. In s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, it was found contrary to the Charter as it violated the presumption of innocence.
2. An important reason could be the protection of public safety and the fight against drug - related crimes. If the state can show that a particular reverse onus provision is crucial for achieving a significant public - interest goal like curbing drug trafficking, it could potentially be considered important enough for the first criterion.
3. The third criterion applies as the right to be presumed innocent should be limited as little as possible. It is not possible to partially limit the right to be presumed innocent in a justifiable way in this context because the presumption of innocence is a fundamental right. A partial limitation would still undermine the core principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Answer:

1. "Reverse onus" places the burden of proof on the accused to disprove an essential element of an offence. It was contrary to the Charter as it violated the presumption of innocence.
2. Protection of public safety and fight against drug - related crimes could be an important reason for the first criterion.
3. The third criterion applies. It is not possible to partially limit the right to be presumed innocent as it is a fundamental right.