Landmark Cases

R v Oakes

Citation Formats

General Reference

Law Atlas. "R v Oakes." Accessed August 30, 2026. https://law.interactiveatlas.org/landmark-cases/r-v-oakes.

APA Style

Law Atlas. (n.d.). R v Oakes. Retrieved August 30, 2026, from https://law.interactiveatlas.org/landmark-cases/r-v-oakes

BibTeX

@misc{lawatlas-r-v-oakes,
  author = {Law Atlas},
  title = {R v Oakes},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://law.interactiveatlas.org/landmark-cases/r-v-oakes},
  note = {Accessed August 30, 2026}
}

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.

Facts

Decision Year

1986 1

Holding

Section 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 Status

Decided 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

Cross-Tradition Connections

Decided By

Supreme Court of Canada

Source R v Oakes (Wikipedia)

Established

Proportionality

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)