R v Oakes is a 1986 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that established the two-part Oakes test for justifying a limit on a right guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Charter section 1. David Oakes was arrested in London, Ontario, in possession of eight one-gram vials of cannabis resin and charged with trafficking under a reverse-onus provision of the Narcotic Control Act that presumed trafficking from mere possession unless the accused proved otherwise. The Court held that this presumption violated the presumption of innocence guaranteed by section 11(d) of the Charter and could not be saved under section 1, and in the same judgment set out the proportionality analysis every subsequent Charter-limiting law must satisfy. This description is adapted from Wikipedia contributors under CC BY-SA 4.0; changes were made. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
Facts
Decision Year Decision Date HoldingSection 8 of the Narcotic Control Act's reverse-onus presumption of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Charter and was not saved under section 1; the Court articulated a two-part proportionality test requiring the limiting measure be rationally connected to a pressing and substantial objective and impair the right as little as possible. 1 Current StatusDecided 1986 by the Supreme Court of Canada; established the Oakes test, cited in every subsequent case testing a Charter-limiting law under section 1. 1 Case Status
Case Status (category) Connections
Decided By
Source R v Oakes (Wikipedia)
Established
R v Oakes is the Canadian origin of the modern proportionality test; other jurisdictions (Germany, the ECHR) developed parallel proportionality doctrines independently, so this edge names one strand, not a single global origin.
Source R v Oakes (Wikipedia)
In Legal System
Source R v Oakes (Wikipedia)
In the Other Atlases
Found In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject is found.
Sources
1. R v Oakes (Wikipedia)
WikipediaCase summary - entity-description
possession of a small or negligible quantity of narcotics does not support the inference of trafficking
- Court and year section - decision-year
Holding and Oakes test section - holding
an objective related to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society
Court's reasons section
In short, they must be rationally connected to the objective; Second, the means, even if rationally connected to the objective in this first sense, should impair "as little as possible" the right or freedom in question; Third, there must be a proportionality between the effects of the measures which are responsible for limiting the Charter right or freedom, and the objective which has been identified as of "sufficient importance".
- Case status section - case-status
- In Category: Landmark Cases, Category placement - in-category
- Decided By: Supreme Court of Canada, Court and year section - decided-by
- In Legal System: Common Law, Case summary - in-legal-system
Established: Proportionality, Holding and Oakes test section - established-by proportionality
an objective related to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society
In Group: Executive Power, Federalism and Limits on Government Cases, Introduction
is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that established the legal test for whether a government action infringing a right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is justified.
View the Source 2. R v Oakes (Wikipedia)
Infobox, judgmentQuote, Infobox, judgment
Judgment: February 28, 1986
Wikidata: R v Oakes
Wikidata Q7274285, class allow-list match (w-wdresolver-0926)View the Source Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.