SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CITATION: Alberta v. Hutterian ...

of the case.B. Section 1: The Oakes Test[183] As set out in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, the Oakes test has stood at the core ofCanadian constitutional law since the early days of the Charter. It has been the central issue of muchCharter litigation. The outcome of complex cases has frequently turned on whether a limitation ofa right was justified under s. 1. In Oakes, our Court sought to give meaning and structure to thebroad and bald affirmation, in s. 1 of the Charter, that constitutional rights could be limited,provided that the limitation could be justified in a manner consistent with the democratic values ofCanada. Although courts have struggled in applying or interpreting it, the Oakes test has stood thetest of time and remains a critical component of the constitutional ordering of basic rights in Canada.[184] In the context of the values of the democratic society of Canada, courts were assignedthe responsibility of final adjudication in the case of conflicts between public authorities andcitizens, subject to the derogation or notwithstanding clause in s. 33 (Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act,[1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, at pp. 496-97). In its own way, the Oakes test is yet another attempt todetermine why and how a law could be found to be just and whether it should be enforced. Manycenturies ago, St. Thomas Aquinas put his mind to the same question. For him, a just law was onewith a legitimate purpose which relied on reasonable or proportionate means to achieve it.Proportionate burdens should be imposed on citizens (see T. Aquinas, Treatise on Law (1991), atp. 96). In more modern times, the same idea informed the drafting of the European Convention ofHuman Rights. It inspired the approach of international law in domains like the laws of war (see