Scenario A23-year-old construction worker, was approached by police outside a tavern in London, Ontario. They found eight one-gram vials of hashish oil worth $150 and $619.45 in cash on him. He was charged with unlawful possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking, under the thenNarcotic Control Act. Under section 8 of that Act, if you were found guilty of possession of a certain amount of an illegal narcotic, you would be convicted of trafficking in that drug, unless you could prove otherwise.

The construction worker claimed that the drugs in his possession were for purely personal use to relieve his pain from a workplace accident. He said the money was from having recently cashed his worker's compensation cheque.

His lawyer took aim at the constitutionality of the reverse onus when theChartercame into effect the next year.The lawyer's' position was that the reverse onus in section 8 of theNarcotics Control Actviolated the presumption of innocence contained in section 11(d) of the newCharter.

Question Please flesh out the argument for s. 11(d) challenge and if necessary apply the s. 1 analysis of justifiable limit (20 Marks)