[c 2][c 3] Oakes was also found with CA$619.45 (equivalent to $1,966 in 2023) in cash, afterwards he told police he had purchased ten one gram vials of hashish oil for $150 for personal use and the money was from a workers' compensation cheque.

The Ontario Court of Appeals considered the reverse onus provisions in the wake of Parliament passing the Canadian Bill of Rights which included section 2(f) and the presumption of innocence, in 1960.

[c 4][c 5] Following the introduction of the Charter two Section 11 challenges to the reverse onus trafficking provisions of the Narcotic Control Act were heard.

This was because there was no rational connection between basic possession and the presumption of trafficking, and therefore the shift in onus is not related to the previous challenge to section 11(d) of the Charter.

These include values such as: Charter rights are not absolute and it is necessary to limit them in order to achieve "collective goals of fundamental importance".

The court presents a two-step test to justify a limitation based on the analysis in R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd. First, the limitation must be motivated by "an objective related to concerns which are pressing and substantial in a free and democratic society", and second it must be shown "that the means chosen are reasonable and demonstrably justified".