Search results
Feb 7, 2006 · In R v. Oakes (1986), David E. Oakes was accused of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking. The Supreme Court of Canada concluded that section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act runs counter to the presumption of innocence enshrined in section 11 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .
On December 17, 1981, David Edwin Oakes was arrested in London, Ontario and charged with possession of eight one gram vials of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking, a narcotic under Section 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act.
The respondent, David Edwin Oakes, was charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act. He elected trial by magistrate without a jury.
Nov 1, 2016 · In 1981 David Edwin Oakes, a 23-year-old construction worker, was approached by police outside a tavern in London, Ontario. They found eight one-gram vials of hashish oil worth $150 and $619.45 in cash on him.
This page contains a form to search the Supreme Court of Canada case information database. You can search by the SCC 5-digit case number, by name or word in the style of cause, or by file number from the appeal court.
Nov 15, 2014 · CASE – R v Oakes. Importance of this case: ·SC’s first comprehensive treatment of meaning of s. 1. ·Primary referent for 2 nd stage of Charter adjudication. Facts: Narcotic Control Act created presumption that possession of a narcotic created presumption that the intent was to traffic (unless the accused established the absence of such an ...
Nov 28, 2014 · The Oakes Test. R. v. Oakes, 1986 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 103. Facts: s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act (reverse onus clause) created a “rebuttable presumption” that once the fact of possession of a narcotic had been proven, an intention to traffic would be inferred unless the accused established an absence of such an intention.Oakes ...
