Oakes Test and Proportionality Test: Balance between the Practical Costs of Limiting Rights and the Benefits Arising from the Law

Authors: Rafael Tedrus Bento

Abstract:

The analysis of proportionality as a test is raised as a basic foundation for the achievement of Fundamental Rights. We used legal dogmatics and empirical analysis to seek the expected results, from the reading of the RV Oakes trial by the Supreme Court of Canada. In cases involving freedom of expression, two tests are used to resolve disputes. The first examines whether, in fact, the case can be characterized as a violation of freedom of expression; the second assesses whether this violation can be justified by the reasonable limit clause. This test was defined in the RV Oakes trial by the Supreme Court of Canada, concluding with the Oakes Test, used worldwide as a proportionality test. Resulting is a proportionality between the effects of the limiting measure and the objective - the more serious the harmful effects of a measure, the more important the objective must be.

Keywords: Oakes, proportionality. fundamental rights, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

References:

[1] Antigua and Barbuda. Attorney-General & Anor v. Goodwin & Ors. 1999. Available: http://www.worldcourts.com/ecsc/eng/decisions/1999.10.25_AG_v_Goodwin.pdf. Accessed on: May 8, 2020.
[2] Australia. Kartinyeri v. The Commonwealth. 1998. Available at: https://jade.io/j/?a=outline&id=68043. Accessed on: May 8, 2020;
[3] Fiji Island. Chaudhry v. Attorney-General. 1999. Available at: http://vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/library/Paclaw/Fiji/Fiji_cases/FLR_1999/Chaudhry_v_AG.html. Accessed on: May 8, 2020.
[4] Hong Kong. R. v. Sin Yau Ming. 1991. Available at: https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr98-99/english/bc/bc65/papers/p1997e.pdf. Accessed on: May 8, 2020.
[5] Irland. Blascaod Mor Teoranta v. Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland. 1998. Available at: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da027984653d058440f93fa. Accessed on: 08 May 2020.
[6] Israel. United Mizrahi Bank Ltd. v. Migdal Cooperative Village 1995. Available at: https://versa.cardozo.yu.edu/opinions/united-mizrahi-bank-v-migdal-cooperative-village. Accessed on: May 8, 2020;
[7] Jamaica. Jamaica Bar Association v. Ernest Smith & Company. 2003. Available at: https://www.courtofappeal.gov.jm/sites/default/files/judgments/Jamaica%20Bar%20Assoc.%20%28The%29%20v.%20The%20Attorney%20General%2C%20The % 20D.PP% 20et% 20al.pdf. Accessed on: May 8, 2020.
[8] Namibia. Kauesa v. Minister of Home Affairs & Ors. 1995. Available at: https://namiblii.org/na/judgment/supreme-court/1995/3. Accessed on: May 8, 2020.
[9] South Africa. S v. Zuma. 1995. Available at: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/1995/1.html. Accessed on: May 8, 2020;
[10] United Kingdom. R. v. Lambert. 2001. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd010705/regina-1.htm. Accessed on: May 8, 2020;
[11] Zimbabwe. Chavunduka v. Minister of Home Affairs. 2000. Available at: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/chavunduka-v-minister-home-affairs/. Accessed on: May 8, 2020.
[12] Weinrib, Lorena E. The Supreme Court of Canada and Section One of the Charter. Supreme Court Law Review. Vol. 10. P. 469. 1986. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1147225. Accessed on: May 8, 2020.
[13] Choudhry, S. So What is the Real Legacy of Oakes? Two Decades of Proportionality Analysis under the Canadian Charter's Section 1. In: Supreme Court Law Review. v. 34, n. 2, 2006. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=930436. Accessed on: 04 May 2020.
[14] Canada. Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp. Case number 30611. Canada: 2007. Available at: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2369/index.do. Accessed on: May 8, 2020.
[15] Canada. R. v. Oakes 1 SCR 103, Case number 17550, Canada: 1986. Available at: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/117/index.do. Accessed on: 04 May 2020.
[16] Canada. Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960. Available at: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-12.3/FullText.html. Accessed on: 04 May 2020.
[17] Panaccio, CM In Defense of Two-Step Balancing and Proportionality in Rights Adjudication. In: The Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence. v. XXIV, n. 1, Jan. 2011.
[18] Canada. RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada. Case number 23460, 23490, Canada: 1995. Available at: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1290/index.do. Accessed on: 05 May 2020.
[19] Petter, AJ and Mohanan, PJ Developments in Constitutional Law: The 1986-87 Term. Supreme Court Law Review. Vol. 10. Pp. 61-145. 1988. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1640782. Accessed on: May 8, 2020.
[20] Marmelstein, George. Fundamental rights course. 7th Ed. São Paulo: Atlas. 2018.
[21] Sundfeld. Carlos Ari. Administrative Law for Skeptics. 2nd Edition. São Paulo: Malheiros. 2014. P. 222.
[22] The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on these aspects in the following case: CANADA. Stoffman v. Vancouver General Hospital. Case number 20795. Canada: 1990. Available at: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/689/index.do. Accessed on: 11 May 2020.