CLU3M Unit 2 Rights and Freedoms

1. CLU3M Unit 2 Rights and Freedoms R v. Big M drug Mart 1985

2. R v. Big M Drug Mart • Sunday, May 30, 1982- Calgary. Big M Drug Mart was pen for business and allowed several transactions • The Lord’s Day Act (1906)- s. 4- “it is not lawful for any person on the Lord’s Day (Sunday)…to sell offer for sale or purchase any goods, moveable possessions or other personal property” • Trial judge in 1983 dismissed the case on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional.

3. R v. Big M Drug Mart • Infringement of the Freedom of religion- if any law infringes a right or freedom it cannot exist. • The Crown appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal- also dismissed • The Alberta Attorney general then appealed to the SCC • March 1985- The SCC had to decide if the Lord’s Day Act infringed Freedom of religion • The SCC also had to determine if the law could be saved as a reasonable limit

4. R v. Big M Drug Mart • Final decision April 1985 • 6-0 decision- the Lord’s Day Act infringed Freedom of religion and could not be saved as a reasonable limit by sect. 1 • “If I am a Jew or Sabbatarian or a Muslim, the practice of my religion at least implies my right to work on a Sunday if I wish” • One religion cannot be protected over others

5. R. v. Oakes • 1982 David Oakes- unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking (s. 8) • Crown had to prove that Oakes had the drugs on him • It was up to Oakes to prove that he did not have them for trafficking • Oakes said this violated his presumption of innocence

6. R. v. Oakes • Canadian legal tradition that the Crown proves guilt • Possible infringement of 11 (d) • First trial and the appeal was won in Oakes’s favour • 1986 SCC accepted Oakes’s argument ( He won!)

7. R. v. Oakes • Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act could not be saved by sect 1. • The Oakes Test was born: • Does the law enforce an important government objective? • Proportionality: is there a connection between limiting a person’s rights and the objective of the law? • Does the law interfere with rights as little as possible? • Are the effects of the limit proportional to the objective? The SCC ruled that there can never be an assumption of guilt based on irrational connections. Every time we have a rights violation, the SCC must determine if the violation is reasonable using the Oakes Test

8. Framework for Charter Reasoning • 1. Does the Charter apply (section 32)? • For there to be an violation of infringements of rights we must be dealing with federal or provincial law • 2. Has there been an infringement or violation? If so, what sections of the Charter have been infringed? • 3. Proportionality test: Is the infringement reasonable? • Does the law enforce an important government decision? • Is the reason of importance to Canadian society? • The measure carried out that violates the right must be logically connected to the purpose • Is the right limited as little as possible • This is how we justify that a violation of a right is reasonably limited and justified in our society