R. v. Oakes

R. v. Oakes
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1986-02-28
Report
[1986] 1 SCR 103
Case number
17550
Judges
Dickson, Robert George Brian; Estey, Willard Zebedee; McIntyre, William Rogers; Chouinard, Julien; Lamer, Antonio; Wilson, Bertha; Le Dain, Gerald Eric
On appeal from
Ontario
Subjects
Constitutional law
Criminal law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 17550
Decision Content
R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103
Her Majesty The Queen Appellant;
and
David Edwin Oakes Respondent.
File No.: 17550.
1985: March 12; 1986: February 28.
Present: Dickson C.J. and Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for ontario
Constitutional law ‑‑ Charter of Rights ‑‑ Presumption of innocence (s. 11 (d)) ‑‑ Reverse onus clause ‑‑ Accused presumed to be trafficker on finding of possession of illicit drug ‑‑ Onus on accused to rebut presumption ‑‑ Whether or not reverse onus in violation of s. 11 (d) of the Charter ‑‑ Whether or not reverse onus a reasonable limit to s. 11 (d) and justified in a free and democratic society ‑‑ Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1 , 11 (d) ‑‑ Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N‑1, ss. 3(1), (2), 4(1), (2), (3), 8.
Criminal law ‑‑ Presumption of innocence ‑‑ Reverse onus ‑‑ Accused presumed to be trafficker on finding of possession of illicit drug ‑‑ Onus on accused to rebut presumption ‑‑ Whether or not constitutional guarantee of presumption of innocence (s. 11 (d) of the Charter ) violated.
Respondent was charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act, but was convicted only of unlawful possession. After the trial judge made a finding that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that respondent was in possession of a narcotic, respondent brought a motion challenging the constitutional validity of s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. That section provides that if the Court finds the accused in possession of a narcotic, the accused is presumed to be in possession for the purpose of trafficking and that, absent the accused's establishing the contrary, he must be convicted of trafficking. The Ontario Court of Appeal, on an appeal brought by the Crown, found that this provision constituted a "reverse onus" clause and held it to be unconstitutional because it violated the presumption of innocence now entrenched in s. 11 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The Crown appealed and a constitutional question was stated as to whether s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act violated s. 11 (d) of the Charter and was therefore of no force and effect. Inherent in this question, given a finding that s. 11 (d) of the Charter had been violated, was the issue of whether or not s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act was a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society for the purpose of s. 1 of the Charter .
Held: The appeal should be dismissed and the constitutional question answered in the affirmative.
Per Dickson C.J. and Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain JJ.: Pursuant to s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, the accused, upon a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of a narcotic, has the legal burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that he was not in possession of the narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. On proof of possession, a mandatory presumption arises against the accused that he intended to traffic and the accused will be found guilty unless he can rebut this presumption on a balance of probabilities.
The presumption of innocence lies at the very heart of the criminal law and is protected expressly by s. 11 (d) of the Charter and inferentially by the s. 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person. This presumption has enjoyed longstanding recognition at common law and has gained widespread acceptance as evidenced from its inclusion in major international human rights documents. In light of these sources, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty requires, at a minimum, that: (1) an individual be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the State must bear the burden of proof; and (3) criminal prosecutions must be carried out in accordance with lawful procedures and fairness.
A provision which requires an accused to disprove on a balance of probabilities the existence of a presumed fact, which is an important element of the offence in question, violates the presumption of innocence in s. 11 (d). The fact that the standard required on rebuttal is only a balance of probabilities does not render a reverse onus clause constitutional.
Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act infringes the presumption of innocence in s. 11 (d) of the Charter by requiring the accused to prove he is not guilty of trafficking once the basic fact of possession is proven.
The rational connection test ‑‑ the potential for a rational connection between the basic fact and the presumed fact to justify a reverse onus provision ‑‑ does not apply to the interpretation of s. 11 (d). A basic fact may rationally tend to prove a presumed fact, but still not prove its existence beyond a reasonable doubt, which is an important aspect of the presumption of innocence. The appropriate stage for invoking the rational connection test is under s. 1 of the Charter .
Section 1 of the Charter has two functions: First, it guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in the provisions which follow it; and second, it states explicitly the exclusive justificatory criteria (outside of s. 33 of the Constitutional Act, 1982) against which limitations on those rights and freedoms may be measured.
The onus of proving that a limitation on any Charter right is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society rests upon the party seeking to uphold the limitation. Limits on constitutionally guaranteed rights are clearly exceptions to the general guarantee. The presumption is that Charter rights are guaranteed unless the party invoking s. 1 can bring itself within the exceptional criteria justifying their being limited.
The standard of proof under s. 1 is a preponderance of probabilities. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be unduly onerous on the party seeking to limit the right because concepts such as "reasonableness", "justifiability", and "free and democratic society" are not amenable to such a standard. Nevertheless, the preponderance of probability test must be applied rigorously.
Two central criteria must be satisfied to establish that a limit is reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. First, the objective to be served by the measures limiting a Charter right must be sufficiently important to warrant overriding a constitutionally protected right or freedom. The standard must be high to ensure that trivial objectives or those discordant with the principles of a free and democratic society do not gain protection. At a minimum, an objective must relate to societal concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society before it can be characterized as sufficiently important. Second, the party invoking s. 1 must show the means to be reasonable and demonstrably justified. This involves a form of proportionality test involving three important components. To begin, the measures must be fair and not arbitrary, carefully designed to achieve the objective in question and rationally connected to that objective. In addition, the means should impair the right in question as little as possible. Lastly, there must be a proportion­ality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective ‑‑ the more severe the deleterious effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be.
Parliament's concern that drug trafficking be decreased was substantial and pressing. Its objective of protecting society from the grave ills of drug trafficking was self‑evident, for the purposes of s. 1 , and could potentially in certain cases warrant the overriding of a constitutionally protected right. There was, however, no rational connection between the basic fact of possession and the presumed fact of possession for the purpose of trafficking. The possession of a small or negligible quantity of narcotics would not support the inference of trafficking.
Per Estey and McIntyre JJ.: Concurred in the reasons of Dickson C.J. with respect to the relationship between s. 11 (d) and s. 1 of the Charter but the reasons of Martin J.A. in the court below were adopted for the disposition of all other issues.
Cases Cited
R. v. Shelley, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 196; R. v. Carroll (1983), 147 D.L.R. (3d) 92; R. v. Cook (1983), 4 C.C.C. (3d) 419; R. v. Stanger (1983), 7 C.C.C. (3d) 337; R. v. Appleby, [1972] S.C.R. 303; Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] A.C. 462, considered; Ong Ah Chuan v. Public Prosecutor, [1981] A.C. 648, distinguished; R. v. Babcock and Auld, [1967] 2 C.C.C. 235; R. v. O’Day (1983), 5 C.C.C. (3d) 227; R. v. Landry, [1983] C.A. 408, 7 C.C.C. (3d) 555; R. v. Therrien (1982), 67 C.C.C. (2d) 31; R. v. Fraser (1982), 138 D.L.R. (3d) 488; R. v. Kupczyniski, Ontario County Court, unreported, June 23, 1982; R. v. Sharpe (1961), 131 C.C.C. 75; R. v. Silk, [1970] 3 C.C.C. (2d) 1; R. v. Erdman (1971), 24 C.R.N.S. 216; Public Prosecutor v. Yuvaraj, [1970] 2 W.L.R. 226; R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; Manchuk v. The King, [1938] S.C.R. 341; R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; Dubois v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; Singh v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177; R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; R. v. Stock (1983), 10 C.C.C. (3d) 319; Re Anson and The Queen (1983), 146 D.L.R. (3d) 661; R. v. Holmes (1983), 41 O.R. (2d) 250; R. v. Whyte (1983), 10 C.C.C. (3d) 277; R. v. Lee’s Poultry Ltd. (1985), 17 C.C.C. 539; R. v. T. (1985), 18 C.C.C. (3d) 125; R. v. Kowalczuk (1983), 5 C.C.C. (3d) 25; R. v. Schwartz (1983), 10 C.C.C. (3d) 34; Re Boyle and The Queen (1983), 41 O.R. (2d) 713; Tot v. United States, 319 U.S. 463 (1943); Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6 (1969); County Court of Ulster County, New York v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140 (1979); In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970); Pfunders Case (Austria v. Italy) (1963), 6 Yearbook E.C.H.R. 740; X against the United Kingdom, Appl'n No. 5124/71, Collection of Decisions, E.C.H.R., 135; Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; Bater v. Bater, [1950] 2 All E.R. 458; Hanes v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co., [1963] S.C.R. 154; Smith v. Smith, [1952] 2 S.C.R. 312, referred to.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, s. 2(f).
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1 , 11 (d).
Constitution Act, 1982, s. 33 .
Constitution of the United States of America, 5th and 14th Amendments.
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C‑34, s. 224A(1)(a) (now s. 237(1)(a)).
Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. F‑27, s. 35 (formerly s. 33 en. by 1960‑61 (Can.), c. 37, s. 1).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, art. 14(2).
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 1971 (U.K.), c. 38.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, 1975 (N.Z.), No. 116.
Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N‑1, ss. 3(1), (2), 4(1), (2), (3), 8.
Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 201.
Protocol for Limiting and Regulating the Cultivation of the Poppy Plant, the Production of, International and Wholesale Trade in, and Use of Opium.
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 11(I).
Authors Cited
Canada. Commission of Inquiry into the Non‑Medical Use of Drugs. Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non‑Medical Use of Drugs, Ottawa, Information Canada, 1973.
Canada. Report of the Special Committee on Traffic in Narcotic Drugs, Appendix to Debates of the Senate, 1955 Session.
Cross, Sir Rupert. Evidence, 5th ed., London, Butterworths, 1979.
Cross, Sir Rupert. "The Golden Thread of the English Criminal Law: The Burden of Proof," delivered in the Rede Lectures, University of Toronto, Toronto, 1976.
Jacobs, Francis. The European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1975.
MacKay, A. Wayne and T. A. Cromwell. "Oakes: A Bold Initiative Impeded by Old Ghosts" (1983), 32 C.R. (3d) 221, 221‑235.
Sopinka, John and Sidney N. Lederman. The Law of Evidence in Civil Cases, Toronto, Butterworths, 1974.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal (1983), 145 D.L.R. (3d) 123, 2 C.C.C. (3d) 339, dismissing an appeal of the Crown from a judgment of Walker Prov. Ct. J. convicting the accused of simple possession on a charge of possessing narcotics for the purposes of trafficking contrary to s. 4(2) of the Narcotic Control Act. Appeal dismissed.
Julius Isaac, Q.C., Michael R. Dambrot and Donna C. McGillis, for the appellant.
Geoffrey A. Beasley, for the respondent.
The judgment of Dickson C.J. and Chouinard, Lamer, Wilson and Le Dain JJ. was delivered by
1. The Chief Justice‑‑This appeal concerns the constitutionality of s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N‑1. The section provides, in brief, that if the Court finds the accused in possession of a narcotic, he is presumed to be in possession for the purpose of trafficking. Unless the accused can establish the contrary, he must be convicted of trafficking. The Ontario Court of Appeal held that this provision constitutes a "reverse onus" clause and is unconstitutional because it violates one of the core values of our criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence, now entrenched in s. 11 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms . The Crown has appealed.
I
Statutory and Constitutional Provisions
2. Before reviewing the factual context, I will set out the relevant legislative and constitutional provisions:
Narcotic Control Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. N‑1.
3. (1) Except as authorized by this Act or the regulations, no person shall have a narcotic in his possession.
(2) Every person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable
(a) upon summary conviction for a first offence, to a fine of one thousand dollars or to imprisonment for six months or to both fine and imprisonment, and for a subsequent offence, to a fine of two thousand dollars or to imprisonment for one year or to both fine and imprisonment; or
(b) upon conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for seven years.
4. (1) No person shall traffic in a narcotic or any substance represented or held out by him to be a narcotic.
(2) No person shall have in his possession a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.
(3) Every person who violates subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for life.
...
8. In any prosecution for a violation of subsection 4(2), if the accused does not plead guilty, the trial shall proceed as if it were a prosecution for an offence under section 3, and after the close of the case for the prosecution and after the accused has had an opportunity to make full answer and defence, the court shall make a finding as to whether or not the accused was in possession of the narcotic contrary to section 3; if the court finds that the accused was not in possession of the narcotic contrary to section 3, he shall be acquitted but if the court finds that the accused was in possession of the narcotic contrary to section 3, he shall be given an opportunity of establishing that he was not in possession of the narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, and thereafter the prosecutor shall be given an opportunity of adducing evidence to establish that the accused was in possession of the narcotic for the purpose of trafficking; if the accused establishes that he was not in possession of the narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, he shall be acquitted of the offence as charged but he shall be convicted of an offence under section 3 and sentenced accordingly; and if the accused fails to establish that he was not in possession of the narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, he shall be convicted of the offence as charged and sentenced accordingly.
(Emphasis added.)
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
...
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
II
Facts
3. 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. At trial, the Crown adduced evidence to establish that Mr. Oakes was found in possession of eight one gram vials of cannabis resin in the form of hashish oil. Upon a further search conducted at the police station, $619.45 was located. Mr. Oakes told the police that he had bought ten vials of hashish oil for $150 for his own use, and that the $619.45 was from a workers' compensation cheque. He elected not to call evidence as to possession of the narcotic. Pursuant to the procedural provisions of s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, the trial judge proceeded to make a finding that it was beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Oakes was in possession of the narcotic.
4. Following this finding, Mr. Oakes brought a motion to challenge the constitutional validity of s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, which he maintained imposes a burden on an accused to prove that he or she was not in possession for the purpose of trafficking. He argued that s. 8 violates the presumption of innocence contained in s. 11 (d) of the Charter .
III
Judgments
(a) Ontario Provincial Court (R. v. Oakes (1982), 38 O.R. (2d) 598)
5. At trial, Walker Prov. Ct. J. borrowed the words of Laskin C.J. in R. v. Shelley, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 196, at p. 202, and found there was no rational or necessary connection between the fact proved, i.e., possession of the drug, and the conclusion asked to be drawn, namely, possession for the purpose of trafficking. Walker Prov. Ct. J. held that, to the extent that s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act requires this presumption and the resultant conviction, it is inoperative as a violation of the presumption of innocence contained in s. 11 (d) of the Charter .
6. Walker Prov. Ct. J. added that the reverse onus in s. 8 would not be invalid if the Crown had adduced evidence of possession as well as evidence from which it could be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking. If this were done, there would be a sufficient rational connection between the fact of possession and the presumed fact of trafficking.
(b)Ontario Court of Appeal (R. v. Oakes (1983), 145 D.L.R. (3d) 123)
7. Martin J.A., writing for a unanimous court, dismissed the appeal and held the reverse onus provision in s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act unconstitutional.
8. Martin J.A. stated that, as a general rule, a reverse onus clause which places a burden on the accused to disprove on a balance of probabilities an essential element of an offence contravenes the right to be presumed innocent. Nevertheless, he held that some reverse onus provisions may be constitutionally valid provided they constitute reasonable limitations on the right to be presumed innocent and are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
9. To determine whether a particular reverse onus provision is legitimate, Martin J.A. outlined a two‑pronged inquiry. First, it is necessary to pass a threshold test which he explained as follows, at p. 146:
The threshold question in determining the legitimacy of a particular reverse onus provision is whether the reverse onus clause is justifiable in the sense that it is reasonable for Parliament to place the burden of proof on the accused in relation to an ingredient of the offence in question. In determining the threshold question consideration should be given to a number of factors, including such factors as: (a) the magnitude of the evil sought to be suppressed, which may be measured by the gravity of the harm resulting from the offence or by the frequency of the occurrence of the offence or by both criteria; (b) the difficulty of the prosecution making proof of the presumed fact, and (c) the relative ease with which the accused may prove or disprove the presumed fact. Manifestly, a reverse onus provision placing the burden of proof on the accused with respect to a fact which it is not rationally open to him to prove or disprove cannot be justified.
10. If the reverse onus provision meets these criteria, due regard having been given to Parliament's assessment of the need for the provision, a second test must then be satisfied. This second test was described by Martin J.A. as the "rational connection test". According to it, to be reasonable, the proven fact (e.g., possession) must rationally tend to prove the presumed fact (e.g., an intention to traffic). In other words, the proven fact must raise a probability that the presumed fact exists.
11. In considering s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, Martin J.A. focused primarily on the second test at p. 147:
I have reached the conclusion that s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act is constitutionally invalid because of the lack of a rational connection between the proved fact (possession) and the presumed fact (an intention to traffic).... Mere possession of a small quantity of a narcotic drug does not support an inference of possession for the purpose of trafficking or even tend to prove an intent to traffic. Moreover, upon proof of possession, s. 8 casts upon the accused the burden of disproving not some formal element of the offence but the burden of disproving the very essence of the offence.
12. Martin J.A. added that it is not for courts to attempt to rewrite s. 8 by applying it on a case by case basis. Furthermore, where a rational connection does exist between possession and the presumed intention to traffic, such as "where the possession of a narcotic drug is of such a nature as to be indicative of trafficking, the common sense of a jury can ordinarily be relied upon to arrive at a proper conclusion". There would not, therefore, be any need for a statutory presumption.
13. One final note should be made regarding Martin J.A.'s judgment. In assessing whether or not s. 8 was a reasonable limitation on the constitutional protection of the presumption of innocence, Martin J.A. combined the analysis of s. 11 (d) with s. 1 . He held that the requirements of s. 1 , that a limitation be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, provided the standard for interpreting the phrase "according to law" in s. 11 (d).
IV
The Issues
14. The constitutional question in this appeal is stated as follows:
Is s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act inconsistent with s. 11 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and thus of no force and effect?
Two specific questions are raised by this general question: (1) does s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act violate s. 11 (d) of the Charter ; and, (2) if it does, is s. 8 a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society for the purpose of s. 1 of the Charter ? If the answer to (1) is affirmative and the answer to (2) negative, then the constitutional question must be answered in the affirmative.
V
Does s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act Violate s. 11(d) of the Charter ?
(a) The Meaning of s. 8
15. Before examining the presumption of innocence contained in s. 11 (d) of the Charter , it is necessary to clarify the meaning of s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act. The procedural steps contemplated by s. 8 were clearly outlined by Branca J.A. in R. v. Babcock and Auld, [1967] 2 C.C.C. 235 (B.C.C.A.), at p. 247:
(A) The accused is charged with possession of a forbidden drug for the purpose of trafficking.
(B) The trial of the accused on this charge then proceeds as if it was a prosecution against the accused on a simple charge of possession of the forbidden drug....
(C) When the Crown has adduced its evidence on the basis that the charge was a prosecution for simple possession, the accused is then given the statutory right or opportunity of making a full answer and defence to the charge of simple possession....
(D) When this has been done the Court must make a finding as to whether the accused was in possession of narcotics contrary to s. 3 of the new Act. (Unlawful possession of a forbidden narcotic drug).
(E) Assuming that the Court so finds, it is then that an onus is placed upon the accused in the sense that an opportunity must be given to the accused of establishing that he was not in possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.
(F) When the accused has been given this opportunity the prosecutor may then establish that the possession of the accused was for the purpose of trafficking....
(G) It is then that the Court must find whether or not the accused has discharged the onus placed upon him under and by the said section.
(H) If the Court so finds, the accused must be acquitted of the offence as charged, namely, possession for the purpose of trafficking, but in that event the accused must be convicted of the simple charge of unlawful possession of a forbidden narcotic....
(I) If the accused does not so establish he must then be convicted of the full offence as charged.
Mr. Justice Branca then added at pp. 247‑48:
It is quite clear to me that under s. 8 of the new Act the trial must be divided into two phases. In the first phase the sole issue to be determined is whether or not the accused is guilty of simple possession of a narcotic. This issue is to be determined upon evidence relevant only to the issue of possession. In the second phase the question to be resolved is whether or not the possession charged is for the purpose of trafficking.
16. Against the backdrop of these procedural steps, we must consider the nature of the statutory presumption contained in s. 8 and the type of burden it places on an accused. The relevant portions of s. 8 read:
8. ...if the court finds that the accused was in possession of the narcotic ... he shall be given an opportunity of establishing that he was not in possession of the narcotic for the purpose of trafficking ... if the accused fails to establish that he was not in possession of the narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, he shall be convicted of the offence as charged....
17. In determining the meaning of these words, it is helpful to consider in a general sense the nature of presumptions. Presumptions can be classified into two general categories: presumptions without basic facts and presumptions with basic facts. A presumption without a basic fact is simply a conclusion which is to be drawn until the contrary is proved. A presumption with a basic fact entails a conclusion to be drawn upon proof of the basic fact (see Cross on Evidence, 5th ed., at pp. 122‑23).
18. Basic fact presumptions can be further categorized into permissive and mandatory presumptions. A permissive presumption leaves it optional as to whether the inference of the presumed fact is drawn following proof of the basic fact. A mandatory presumption requires that the inference be made.
19. Presumptions may also be either rebuttable or irrebuttable. If a presumption is rebuttable, there are three potential ways the presumed fact can be rebutted. First, the accused may be required merely to raise a reasonable doubt as to its existence. Secondly, the accused may have an evidentiary burden to adduce sufficient evidence to bring into question the truth of the presumed fact. Thirdly, the accused may have a legal or persuasive burden to prove on a balance of probabilities the non‑existence of the presumed fact.
20. Finally, presumptions are often referred to as either presumptions of law or presumptions of fact. The latter entail "frequently recurring examples of circumstantial evidence" (Cross on Evidence, supra, at p. 124) while the former involve actual legal rules.
21. To return to s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, it is my view that, upon a finding beyond a reasonable doubt of possession of a narcotic, the accused has the legal burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that he or she was not in possession of the narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. Once the basic fact of possession is proven, a mandatory presumption of law arises against the accused that he or she had the intention to traffic. Moreover, the accused will be found guilty of the offence of trafficking unless he or she can rebut this presumption on a balance of probabilities. This interpretation of s. 8 is supported by the courts in a number of jurisdictions: R. v. Carroll (1983), 147 D.L.R. (3d) 92 (P.E.I.S.C. in banco); R. v. Cook (1983), 4 C.C.C. (3d) 419 (N.S.C.A.); R. v. O’Day (1983), 5 C.C.C. (3d) 227 (N.B.C.A.); R. v. Landry (1983), 7 C.C.C. (3d) 555 (Que. C.A.); R. v. Stanger (1983), 7 C.C.C. (3d) 337 (Alta. C.A.)
22. In some decisions it has been held that s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act is constitutional because it places only an evidentiary burden rather than a legal burden on the accused. The ultimate legal burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt remains with the Crown and the presumption of innocence is not offended. (R. v. Therrien (1982), 67 C.C.C. (2d) 31 (Ont. Co. Ct.); R. v. Fraser (1982), 138 D.L.R. (3d) 488 (Sask. Q.B.); R. v. Kupczyniski, (June 23, 1982, unreported, Ont. Co. Ct.))
23. This same approach was relied on in R. v. Sharpe (1961), 131 C.C.C. 75 (Ont. C.A.), a Canadian Bill of Rights decision on the presumption of innocence. In that case, a provision in the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 201, similar to s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, was interpreted as shifting merely the secondary burden of adducing evidence onto the accused. The primary onus remained with the Crown. In R. v. Silk, [1970] 3 C.C.C. (2d) 1 (B.C.C.A.), the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that s. 2(f) of the Canadian Bill of Rights had not been infringed because s. 33 of the Food and Drugs Act , (now R.S.C. 1970, c. F‑27, s. 35) required only that an accused raise a reasonable doubt that the purpose of his or her possession was trafficking. This decision, however, was not followed in R. v. Appleby, [1972] S.C.R. 303, nor in R. v. Erdman (1971), 24 C.R.N.S. 216 (B.C.C.A.)
24. Those decisions which have held that only the secondary or evidentiary burden shifts are not persuasive with respect to the Narcotic Control Act. As Ritchie J. found in R. v. Appleby, supra, (though addressing a different statutory provision) the phrase "to establish" is the equivalent of "to prove". The legislature, by using the word "establish" in s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act, intended to impose a legal burden on the accused. This is most apparent in the words "if the accused fails to establish that he was not in possession of the narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, he shall be convicted of the offence as charged".
25. In the Appleby case, Ritchie J. also held that the accused is required to disprove the presumed fact according to the civil standard of proof, on a balance of probabilities. He rejected the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, relying, inter alia, upon the following passage from the House of Lords' decision in Public Prosecutor v. Yuvaraj, [1970] 2 W.L.R. 226, at p. 232:
Generally speaking, no onus lies upon a defendant in criminal proceedings to prove or disprove any fact: it is sufficient for his acquittal if any of the facts which, if they existed, would constitute the offence with which he is charged are "not proved". But exceptionally, as in the present case, an enactment creating an offence expressly provides that if other facts are proved, a particular fact, the existence of which is a necessary factual ingredient of the offence, shall be presumed or deemed to exist "unless the contrary is proved". In such a case the consequence of finding that that particular fact is "disproved" will be an acquittal, whereas the absence of such a finding will have the consequence of a conviction. Where this is the consequence of a fact's being "disproved" there can be no grounds in public policy for requiring that exceptional degree of certainty as excludes all reasonable doubt that that fact does not exist. In their Lordships' opinion the general rule applies in such a case and it is sufficient if the court considers that upon the evidence before it it is more likely than not that the fact does not exist. The test is the same as that applied in civil proceedings: the balance of probabilities.
26. I conclude that s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act contains a reverse onus provision imposing a legal burden on an accused to prove on a balance of probabilities that he or she was not in possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. It is therefore necessary to determine whether s. 8 of the Narcotic Control Act offends the right to be "presumed innocent until proven guilty" as guaranteed by s. 11 (d) of the Charter .
(b) The Presumption of Innocence and s. 11 (d) of the Charter
27. Section 11 (d) of the Charter constitutionally entrenches the presumption of innocence as part of the supreme law of Canada. For ease of reference, I set out this provision again:
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
...
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
28. To interpret the meaning of s. 11 (d), it is important to adopt a purposive approach. As this Court stated in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 344:
The meaning of a right or freedom guaranteed by the Charter was to be ascertained by an analysis of the purpose of such a guarantee; it was to be understood, in other words, in the light of the interests it was meant to protect.
In my view this analysis is to be undertaken, and the purpose of the right or freedom in question is to be sought by reference to the character and the larger objects of the Charter itself, to the language chosen to articulate the specific right or freedom, to the historical origins of the concepts enshrined, and where applicable, to the meaning and purpose of the other specific rights and freedoms....
To identify the underlying purpose of the Charter right in question, therefore, it is important to begin by understanding the cardinal values it embodies.
29. The presumption of innocence is a hallowed principle lying at the very heart of criminal law. Although protected expressly in s. 11 (d) of the Charter , the presumption of innocence is referable and integral to the general protection of life, liberty and security of the person contained in s. 7 of the Charter (see Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, per Lamer J.) The presumption of innocence protects the fundamental liberty and human dignity of any and every person accused by the State of criminal conduct. An individual charged with a criminal offence faces grave social and personal consequences, including potential loss of physical liberty, subjection to social stigma and ostracism from the community, as well as other social, psychological and economic harms. In light of the gravity of these consequences, the presumption of innocence is crucial. It ensures that until the State proves an accused's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, he or she is innocent. This is essential in a society committed to fairness and social justice. The presumption of innocence confirms our faith in humankind; it reflects our belief that individuals are decent and law‑abiding members of the community until proven otherwise.
30. The presumption of innocence has enjoyed longstanding recognition at common law. In the leading case, Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] A.C. 462 (H.L.), Viscount Sankey wrote at pp. 481‑82:
Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception. If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention, the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal. No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.
Subsequent Canadian cases have cited the Woolmington principle with approval (see, for example, Manchuk v. The King, [1938] S.C.R. 341, at p. 349; R. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299, at p. 1316).
31. Further evidence of the widespread acceptance of the principle of the presumption of innocence is its inclusion in the major international human rights documents. Article 11(I) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted December 10, 1948 by the General Assembly of the United Nations, provides:
Article 11
I. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, art. 14(2) states:
Article 14
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Canada acceded to this Covenant, and the Optional Protocol which sets up machinery for implementing the Covenant, on May 19, 1976. Both came into effect on August 19, 1976.
32. In light of the above, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty requires that s. 11 (d) have, at a minimum, the following content. First, an individual must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, it is the State which must bear the burden of proof. As Lamer J. stated in Dubois v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350, at p. 357:
Section 11 (d) imposes upon the Crown the burden of proving the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as well as that of making out the case against the accused before he or she need respond, either by testifying or calling other evidence.
Third, criminal prosecutions must be carried out in accordance with lawful procedures and fairness. The latter part of s. 11 (d), which requires the proof of guilt "according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal", underlines the importance of this procedural requirement.
(c) Authorities on Reverse Onus Provisions and the Presumption of Innocence
33. Having considered the general meaning of the presumption of innocence, it is now, I think, desirable to review briefly the authorities on reverse onus clauses in Canada and other jurisdictions.
(i) The Canadian Bill of Rights Jurisprudence
34. Section 2(f) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which safeguards the presumption of innocence, provides:
2. Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, and in particular, no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to
...
(f) deprive a person cha