Charter Cases + Oakes Test

Question 1

Oakes Test (for Charter violations)

Answer 1

1. Violation must be pressing and substantial.
2. Violation must be RATIONALLY CONNECTED to the objective.
3. Charter rights must be MINIMALLY IMPAIRED.
4. Violation must be PROPORTIONAL to the societal impact.

Question 2

R v AM

Answer 2

(Dog sniffing case)
- Section 8: unreasonable search and seizure
- a policeman brought a drug sniffing dog to a high school without a warrant
- the dog found weed in AM’s backpack
- AM argued that this was in violation of section 8 of the Charter
- Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was fruit of a poison tree and would bring the admin of justice into disrepute, so the evidence was dismissed

Question 3

R v Feeney

Answer 3

(Search warrant)
- Section 8: unreasonable search and seizure
- Feeney was a suspect in a murder investigation
- police came to his place and entered without a search warrant
- police found Feeney inside covered in blood
- Feeney argued that police violated his Section 8 rights
- Supreme Court ruled that the police entered Feeney’s property unlawfully, evidence was dismissed

Question 4

R v Harrison

Answer 4

(Traffic stop case)
- Section 8: unreasonable search and seizure
- Section 9: arbitrary detention
- Harrison was pulled over on a police hunch
- police searched his car and found large quantities of cocaine
- Harrison argued that this was in violation of his section 8 and 9 rights
- Supreme Court ruled that police had to ground to stop and search Harrison, evidence was dismissed

Question 5

R v Stinchcombe

Answer 5

(Evidence disclosure)
- Stinchcombe was charged with theft and fraud
- the crown failed to disclose all their evidence to Stinchcombe’s counsel
- Supreme Court ruled that the case would be dismissed because the crown had an obligation to disclose all their evidence

Question 6

R v Williamson

Answer 6

(Undue delays)
- Section 3: undue delays in criminal proceedings
- Williamson was charged with sexually assaulting young boys at a big brother program
- Williamson’s trial took 3 years
- Williamson argued that his section 3 rights were violated
- Supreme Court ruled that the trial was unreasonably delayed, and his case was dismissed

Question 7

R v Oakes

Answer 7

(Presumed innocence)
- Section 11 (d): presumption of innocence
- Oakes was charged with trafficking because of the amount of hash oil he was carrying was classified as trafficking under section 8 of the narcotics act
- Oakes argued this was in violation of his section 11 (d) rights
- Supreme Court ruled that this section of the narcotics act was irrationally connected to the presumed innocence rights in the Charter, case was dismissed