R v Oakes

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article includes a list of references, related reading, or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. Please help improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (January 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (January 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

R v Oakes
Supreme Court of Canada
Hearing: March 12, 1985 Judgment: February 28, 1986
Full case name	Her Majesty the Queen v David Edwin Oakes
Citations	[1986] 1 SCR 103; (1986), 26 DLR (4th) 200; (1986), 24 CCC (3d) 321; (1986), 19 CRR 308; (1986), 50 CR (3d) 1; (1986), 14 OAC 335; 1986 CanLII 46 (SCC)
Docket No.	17550 [1]
Prior history	Judgment for defendant in the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Ruling	Appeal dismissed.
Holding
Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act violates the right to presumption of innocence under Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cannot be saved under Section 1 of the Charter.
Court membership
Chief Justice: Brian Dickson Puisne Justices: Jean Beetz, Willard Estey, William McIntyre, Julien Chouinard, Antonio Lamer, Bertha Wilson, Gerald Le Dain, Gérard La Forest
Reasons given
Majority	Dickson CJ (paras 1–81), joined by Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain JJ
Concurrence	Estey J (para 82), joined by McIntyre J
Beetz and La Forest JJ took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103 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. David Oakes challenged the validity of provisions under the Narcotic Control Act that provided a person found in possession of a narcotic, absent of evidence to the contrary, must be convicted of trafficking the narcotic. Oakes contended the presumption of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence guarantee under Section 11(d) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court established the Oakes test as an analysis of the limitations clause (Section 1) of the Charter that allows reasonable limitations on rights and freedoms through legislation if the limitation is motivated by a "pressing and substantial objective" and can be "demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."^{[c 1]}

Cite error: There are <ref group=c> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=c}} template (see the help page).