POLSCI 3FR3 Lecture Notes - Lecture 2: War Children, Wrongful Dismissal
15 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
3RF3 Poli Sci
Subject!
-Limit Prescribed By Law!
-Purpose is pressing & substantial!
-Rational Connection!
-Min. Impairment!
-Proportionality !
-“Reasonable Limits”!
•R v. Oakes (1986) 1 SCR 103!
-If you’re in possession of a narcotic, its an offence, with intent to traffic, its a
different offence thats worse!
-Because he had 8 vials of hash, it was more than personal use, so charged with
trafficking !
-2 factual defences if charged with possession w intent to traffic (1. I was not in
possession of anything (difficult for Oakes to make because he had them on
him) 2. Yes I am in possession, but this was personal possession, he argued
this)!
•Shifts burden of proof to Oakes instead of Crown!
-admits he was in possession, confess to committing a criminal activity in
order to refute charges of trafficking !
-Crown doesn’t have to prove possession anymore !
%1
-Limits Prescribed By
Law!
-Reasonable in a Free
and Democratic Society
•Purpose!
•Proportionality
-Rational Connection!
-Minimal Impairment!
-Proportionality
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Reasonable in a free: purpose, proportionality and democratic society. Reasonable limits : r v. oakes (1986) 1 scr 103. If you"re in possession of a narcotic, its an o ence, with intent to tra c, its a di erent o ence thats worse. Because he had 8 vials of hash, it was more than personal use, so charged with tra cking. 2 factual defences if charged with possession w intent to tra c (1. I was not in possession of anything (di cult for oakes to make because he had them on him) 2. Yes i am in possession, but this was personal possession, he argued this: shifts burden of proof to oakes instead of crown. Admits he was in possession, confess to committing a criminal activity in order to refute charges of tra cking. Crown doesn"t have to prove possession anymore. Violation of one"s presumption of innocence rights, justi able under section.
