The accused was charged with possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking.
He challenged the constitutionality of the reverse onus provision in the Narcotic Control Act, which presumed an intent to traffic upon proof of possession.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provision violated the presumption of innocence under s. 11(d) of the Charter.
Furthermore, the Court established a two-part proportionality test for s. 1 of the Charter and found that the reverse onus clause failed the rational connection component, as possession of a small quantity of narcotics does not rationally support an inference of intent to traffic.
