The outcome of cases that have gone through the Supreme Court of Canada’s judicial branch have each had a major impact on how the laws and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are interpreted. Three cases in particular that expanded constitutional liberties is the case of R. vs. Oakes (1986), R. vs. Mann (2004) and R. v Clayton (2007). These three cases not only expanded constitutional liberties in general, they more specifically, expanded the rights of an accused. These three prominent cases went to the Supreme Court of Canada and set precedents which directly affected Canadian society.
In the case of R v Oakes, the main topic dealt with the reverse burden of proof that was brought upon the accused, David Edwin Oakes. The issue that was
…show more content…
The question that was to be debated upon and later answered was; Does section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, which states that “Provided that those in possession of narcotics would be presumed to be in possession for the purpose of trafficking unless they proved otherwise and would be convicted” interfere with section 11 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that “Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal”. If a person was found guilty of possession of drugs, Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act stated that the person charged would have to prove that there was no intent to traffic. If the accused was unable to do so, then the person charged with drug possession would automatically be assumed guilty of possession with the intent to traffic. Mr. Oakes challenged this onus by saying it was a violation of his section 11(d) Charter rights. After …show more content…
Mann (2004) is another precedent setting Supreme Court case, whose main issue dealt with search and seizure laws that infringed upon Phillip Mann’s rights that are guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The issue that was brought before the court was if the investigative detention against Mann was a violation of his section 8 Charter rights, which states that “everyone has the right to be secure against an unreasonable search and seizure”. The purpose of the search was to determine if Mann was in possession of illegal weapons because it so happened to be that he was in the same place a crime scene investigation for a burglary was happening and coincidentally matched the suspect description. While police were searching Mann, the officer felt a soft bag in Mann’s sweater pocket. Even though the officer was aware they were only investigating for weapons, the officer intentionally pulled out the bag of Marijuana and arrested Mann immediately. This case went to the Supreme Court, where the court stated that “investigative detention was definitely reasonable given that Mann matched the suspect description and was close to the crime scene, but it was not done for valid objective because the cops could only search for officer safety- once soft object was felt, there was no risk (i.e was not a gun)- ultimately determining that the officer should not have pulled the bag out of Mann’s pocket, resulting in the Supreme Court ruling that the search
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
As a result of the suspect, P.C Spicer asked the defendant for a piece of identification, and Mr.Nanokeesic responded the identification was in his backpack and P.C Spicer told him to get it. Nevertheless, the other office P.C Bannon formed intention to search his backpack during the unlawful detention. The police said “perhaps I need to look for you.” At this point he reached out for the strap of Mr.Nanokeesic’s backpack. In R.v.Mohamd, the court held that the Officer must subjectively believe that person is committing or has committed an indictable offence and their belief is based on objectively reasonable grounds. There was no evidence of Mr.Nanokeesic was committing an indictable offence. Also, the detention of Mr.Nanokeesic was unreasonable and unlawful. In short, the police did not have any lawful basis to conduct a
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.
Blair, Annice. Law in Action: Understanding Canadian Law. Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Education Canada, 2003. Print.
Redding became a starting case against unconstitutional searches of students where a girl had her backpack searched in the assistant principal 's office. After the official searched her bag, the school nurse’s office was her next destination, so the nurse and the administrative assistant could search her clothes and instructed her to shake out the elastic of her bra and underwear (Carpenter 86-87). The tragic part about this case is that it is not the first or final time a similar event has occurred. In the case of Jane Doe, “...or so she was called in this case…”, a student of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas filed a case against her school (Dowling-Sendor 46). Dowling-Sendor tells of how the school regularly conducted searches of book bags and purses, and police officials would take any contraband found. Then any items found would become evidence for a prosecution (46). When school officials searched Jane’s bag, they recovered a container full of Marijuana, and its purpose was to convict Jane Doe on a drug misdemeanor charge. After being charged with this, Jane appealed to the 8th circuit because the District Court first dismissed her case. The court ruled in her favor in a two to one decision, claiming the search caused a violation of her rights. She had every reason to win because school officials search students at this school on a regular basis, and it is
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the strong foundation for the diverse country of Canada. They uphold various beliefs and values Canadians may have. Under the constitution in 1982, the CRF (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was entrenched by then Prime Minister Trudeau. The CRF has 4 rights; Equality, legal, democratic and mobility, there is also 4 freedoms; of Conscience and Religion, of thought, belief, expression and media, of peaceful assembly, and Association. If people feel that their right and/or freedom has been violated, they can go to court by using a “Charter Challenge. ” A charter challenge is when something inequitable or unfair has been done, the citizen can pursue the court case stating that something violated their rights and/or freedoms. All the rights and freedoms help
David Milgaard’s story is one of the most striking and well know representation of wrongful conviction as it happened right here in Saskatoon. Even further than that his case has been called “one of the most famous examples of wrongful conviction in Canada” (CBC News, 2011). In January of 1970, 17-year-old ...
The differentiation between open fields and private property must be made before one can proceed to form an opinion regarding the constitutionality of a warrantless search of an open field. Oliver v. United States is a case in which police officers, acting on reports from neighbors that a patch of marijuana was being cultivated on the Oliver farm, entered on to private property ignoring “No Trespassing” signs, and on to a secluded open portion of the Oliver property without a warrant, discovered the marijuana patch and then arrested Oliver without an arrest warrant. The Maine Judicial Court held that “No Trespassing” signs posted around the Oliver property “evinced a reasonable expectation of privacy,” and therefore the court held that the “open fields” doctrine was not applicable to the Oliver case.
One of the Legal Rights the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects is: The right to be free of imprisonment, search, and seizure without reasons backed by the law. “In a undisclosed school in Canada, there was a sudden police checking, in which police dogs roamed around the hallway of the school to see if there was any suspicious substance or object. During the checking, the police fo...
On February 21 and 22 of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to rule whether th...
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
Welsh, B., & Irving, M. (2005). Crime and punishment in Canada, 1981-1999. Crime and Justice, 33, 247-294. Retrieved from http://library.mtroyal.ca:2063/stable/3488337?&Search=yes&searchText=canada&searchText=crime&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dcrime%2Bin%2Bcanada%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don&prevSearch=&item=18&ttl=33894&returnArticleService=showFullText
The Canadian Justice system is run like a well-oiled machine. It is based on the fair and humane treatment of suspects who remain innocent until proven guilty. There is one big question that has been debated since July 14th, 1976 - should the death penalty have been abolished in Canada? The new younger generation of Canadians seems to agree with me that the death penalty should be resurrected in Canada.
Cameron, Jamie. "Justice in Her Own Right: Bertha Wilson and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." The Law Society of Upper Canada. N.p., 2008. Web. 29 Dec. 2013. .
Wrongful convictions in Canada is a very sensitive and disturbing topic that has created concerns as to why individuals are being wrongfully convicted. As people in Canada read about cases involving wrongful conviction, such as Guy Paul Morin, Rubin Carter and David Millguard, it often undermines their faith in the criminal justice system. Tunnel vision, the use of questionable DNA evidence, and eyewitness misidentification are the three main causes of wrongful convictions in Canada. Recognizing and addressing these concerns has led to a reduction in cases of wrongful convictions in Canada.