Judicial Interpretation Of Charter Rights Violations
1. R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103
Charter Right Involved: Section 11(d) – Presumption of innocence; Section 1 – Reasonable limits
Facts:
David Oakes was charged with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. The Narcotic Control Act presumed that possession of a certain quantity of drugs automatically meant intent to traffic, shifting the burden to the accused to disprove intent.
Issue:
Does the reverse onus provision violate the presumption of innocence under Section 11(d)? If so, can it be justified under Section 1?
Decision:
The Supreme Court struck down the reverse onus, holding it violated Section 11(d). The Court established the Oakes Test, a two-part test to determine whether a law that infringes Charter rights can be justified under Section 1:
Pressing and substantial objective: The government must show a legitimate reason for the law.
Proportionality: Includes rational connection, minimal impairment, and proportionality between infringement and objective.
Significance:
This case is seminal because it established the framework for assessing all future Charter rights infringements under Section 1.
2. R. v. Singh, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 405
Charter Right Involved: Section 7 – Right to life, liberty, and security of the person
Facts:
Harjit Singh challenged mandatory minimum sentences for firearm offences, arguing that they violated Section 7 by imposing disproportionate punishment that could threaten liberty.
Issue:
Do mandatory minimum sentences constitute a violation of Section 7, and if so, can they be justified?
Decision:
The Supreme Court emphasized that laws imposing mandatory minimums must be proportionate and not arbitrary. If a sentence is grossly disproportionate, it violates Section 7. In Singh, certain aspects of the law were scrutinized under the principles of fundamental justice.
Significance:
This case reinforced the idea that Section 7 protects individuals not only from arbitrary deprivation of liberty but also from laws with disproportionate effects.
3. R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295
Charter Right Involved: Section 2(a) – Freedom of religion
Facts:
Big M Drug Mart was charged under the Lord’s Day Act for selling goods on Sunday. The company argued that the law violated freedom of religion.
Issue:
Does the Lord’s Day Act infringe Section 2(a) of the Charter?
Decision:
The Supreme Court struck down the Act, holding that the law imposed a religious observance (Christian Sunday) on everyone, violating freedom of conscience and religion. The Court clarified that freedom of religion includes freedom from religion imposed by law.
Significance:
This case is a landmark for interpreting Section 2(a) broadly, ensuring that the government cannot enact laws enforcing religious observances.
4. R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30
Charter Right Involved: Section 7 – Right to life, liberty, and security of the person
Facts:
Dr. Henry Morgentaler challenged the federal abortion law, which criminalized performing abortions except under specific conditions approved by a committee.
Issue:
Does the law violate a woman’s Section 7 rights by restricting access to abortion?
Decision:
The Supreme Court struck down the law, holding it violated Section 7 because it interfered with women’s bodily autonomy and security of the person.
Significance:
This case confirmed that Section 7 protects personal autonomy and bodily integrity, not just freedom from imprisonment. It also set a precedent for reproductive rights under the Charter.
5. R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45
Charter Right Involved: Section 2(b) – Freedom of expression
Facts:
John Sharpe was charged under laws prohibiting possession of child pornography. He argued the law violated his freedom of expression.
Issue:
Does a law prohibiting certain types of expression (in this case, child pornography) infringe Section 2(b), and is it justifiable under Section 1?
Decision:
The Supreme Court recognized that the law does infringe freedom of expression, but it is justified under Section 1 because the objective—protecting children—is pressing and substantial.
Significance:
This case demonstrates the balancing act between individual freedoms and societal protection, showing that some rights can be limited if the purpose is sufficiently compelling.
6. R. v. Mills, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668
Charter Right Involved: Section 7 – Right to a fair trial; Section 15 – Equality
Facts:
The case dealt with the use of confidential records in sexual assault trials. The defense requested access to the complainant’s private records, while the complainant claimed privacy rights.
Issue:
Does restricting access to private records violate the accused’s Section 7 right to make full answer and defense? Does it violate equality under Section 15?
Decision:
The Supreme Court struck a balance, ruling that the privacy of complainants must be protected but allowing disclosure in limited, justifiable circumstances.
Significance:
Mills illustrates judicial balancing of competing Charter rights—privacy vs. fair trial—showing courts carefully weigh the impact on all parties.
Summary of Judicial Trends
Proportionality and Reasonable Limits – Oakes set the template for evaluating infringements under Section 1.
Protection of Autonomy – Cases like Morgentaler and Singh expand Section 7 beyond mere procedural fairness.
Freedom of Religion and Expression – Big M Drug Mart and Sharpe demonstrate that rights can be limited only for pressing societal interests.
Balancing Competing Rights – Mills shows how courts navigate conflicts between different Charter protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments