In What Ways Are Oakes And Kegstra Case Similar And Dissimilar?
Critical Case Review Response 1
In what ways are the Oakes and Keegstra cases similar and dissimilar? Both cases violated fundamental freedoms and more specifically Section 11(d) which is procedural & substantial protection of the Charter of Rights and freedom. The section was clearly violated with the presumption of innocence between both Oakes and Keegstra. Reverse onus was also shifted onto them both which is the ‘shift of the burden’ is placed onto the defendant. In this, Oakes had to prove that he was not trafficking and Keegstra had to prove his speech was not “hate”. Assumptions by legal authorities and witnesses were made based on the facts presented and final conclusions were met which were similar in both of these cases. Oakes …show more content…
The test judges section 1 of the Charter which states that rights are guaranteed and “subject only to such reasonable limits . . .as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Which means that the government must establish that the benefits of a law outweigh its negative impact, a charter violation. In the Keegstra case it was established that there was a overriding principle for Charter interpretation but with this comes the decision of determining and giving greater protection to the party that needs it the most. Similar to the Oakes case but both cases had different …show more content…
Why? In the Oakes case the judgement that was passed was correct because even though Section 8 of the NCA is a problematic section, Oakes clearly violated Section 11(d) of the Charter and brought in the question of the objective of the legislation and because of this it coined the term and test “Oakes test” that is used to settle other disputes on Charter issues. In the Keegstra case he was fined which was a appropriate sanction. He should be fired and fined but not incarcerated as his crime was inappropriate but he was still exercising his right to free expression. Keegstra’s case is tricky because laws allow freedom of expression but it is limited. You cannot harm others and his words were targeting other social groups causing harm because his beliefs were
In what ways are the Oakes and Keegstra cases similar and dissimilar? Both cases violated fundamental freedoms and more specifically Section 11(d) which is procedural & substantial protection of the Charter of Rights and freedom. The section was clearly violated with the presumption of innocence between both Oakes and Keegstra. Reverse onus was also shifted onto them both which is the ‘shift of the burden’ is placed onto the defendant. In this, Oakes had to prove that he was not trafficking and Keegstra had to prove his speech was not “hate”. Assumptions by legal authorities and witnesses were made based on the facts presented and final conclusions were met which were similar in both of these cases. Oakes …show more content…
The test judges section 1 of the Charter which states that rights are guaranteed and “subject only to such reasonable limits . . .as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Which means that the government must establish that the benefits of a law outweigh its negative impact, a charter violation. In the Keegstra case it was established that there was a overriding principle for Charter interpretation but with this comes the decision of determining and giving greater protection to the party that needs it the most. Similar to the Oakes case but both cases had different …show more content…
Why? In the Oakes case the judgement that was passed was correct because even though Section 8 of the NCA is a problematic section, Oakes clearly violated Section 11(d) of the Charter and brought in the question of the objective of the legislation and because of this it coined the term and test “Oakes test” that is used to settle other disputes on Charter issues. In the Keegstra case he was fined which was a appropriate sanction. He should be fired and fined but not incarcerated as his crime was inappropriate but he was still exercising his right to free expression. Keegstra’s case is tricky because laws allow freedom of expression but it is limited. You cannot harm others and his words were targeting other social groups causing harm because his beliefs were