On a Crown appeal arising from a pre-trial constitutional ruling, the Court held that the reverse onus in s. 394(1)(b) of the Criminal Code violated the presumption of innocence in s. 11(d) of the Charter.
Applying the Oakes framework, the Court accepted that deterring theft of precious metal ore was a pressing and substantial objective and that some burden on the accused was rationally connected to that objective.
However, imposing a legal burden on the accused was not minimally impairing and was not proportionate, because an evidentiary burden would substantially achieve Parliament's purpose with far less intrusion on the presumption of innocence.
The appeal was allowed in part, the stay remained lifted, and the provision was modified to impose only an evidentiary burden.
