R. vs Oakes Case and Reasonable Limits Clause

760 Words2 Pages

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is an important document that allows us to live our lives without arbitrary governmental control, although there may be certain times when rights should be limited. The R. v Oakes case is a perfect example of this situation coming into play. David Edwin Oakes was caught with an unlawful possession of hash oil and was automatically convicted of trafficking, under section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. By looking at the Charter, it was clear that section 8 of the NCA violated his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, guaranteed in section 11.d. With that in mind, the respondent brought in a motion that challenged section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. Since the Supreme Court and the Crown were confident that the suspect was trafficking narcotics, they created a four criteria ruling, in order to reasonably limit the rights of the respondent. This is permissible under section 1 of the Charter, which states that “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms…only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law.”2 The respondent’s case passed the first criterion which stated that “the reasoning for limiting the Charter must be proven important enough to override a constitutionally protected right.” The case did not pass the second criterion which stated that “there must be an appropriate connection between the limitation of rights and the objective of the legislation.”2 Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the respondent was released. After reviewing the case it was clear that even though the suspect did not have his rights limited against him, limiting rights should be used more often in severe cases.
One reason why it is justifiable to limit someone’s...

... middle of paper ...

... 1 helps to make sure that no one takes advantage of their rights. The Notwithstanding Clause is another significant reason why it is okay to have limitations on certain rights.
It may become necessary to limit people’s rights, and there are several reasons why it is okay to do so. The things that make it appropriate to limit someone’s rights include section 1 of the Charter, The Notwithstanding Clause, and also the Oakes Test. Section 1 of the Charter essentially gives permission to the government to limit rights when clearly necessary, the Notwithstanding Clause basically allows the government to override a right or freedom when necessary, and the Oakes Test assures that rights are not limited to an unconstitutional extent. With these stipulations in place, there should be no problem when it comes to limiting a person’s rights and freedoms, under the Charter.

Open Document