View source for Interception of Private Communications

{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderWiretaps}}
==General Principles==
Wiretaps are governed by Part VI of the Criminal Code. 

There are four categories of wiretap:
* a general wiretap authorized under s. 185 and 186. 
* a wiretap with consent under s. 184.2
* an emergency wiretap under s. 184.1, 184.4 and 188
* video intercepts s. 487.01

The emergency wiretap (s. 184.1), exceptional circumstances wiretaps (s. 184.4), and video intercepts (s. 487.01) do not require full judicial authorization. 

A wilful interception of "a private communication" without authorization is a indictable offence under s. 184 with a maximum penalty of 5 years. This offence does not include situations where one of the parties consents (s.184(2)).

An interception of a private communication under a Part VI authorization is a search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.<ref>
R v Grant [http://canlii.ca/t/1f973 1999 CanLII 3694] (ON CA), (1999), 132 CCC (3d) 531 (S.C.C.){{perSCC|Charron J}} at 539
</ref>

The right to full answer and defence permits the accused to examine an edited version of the materials available to the authorizing judge to support the wiretap authorization.<ref>
R v Garofoli, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fss5 1990 CanLII 52] (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 1421{{perSCC|Sopinka J}} at para 1433, 1452</ref>

Modern electronic surveillance has been singled out as a particularly powerful form of privacy intrusion.
But unregulated, it would destroy any sort of privacy and would threaten society.<ref>
R v Duarte, [1990] 1 SCR 30, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fszz 1990 CanLII 150] (SCC){{perSCC|LaForest J}} - Judge referring to electronic surveillance as "superbly" equipped to fight crime, but left unregulated would mean "privacy no longer had any meaning"<br>
R v Wong, [1990] 3 SCR 36, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsq9 1990 CanLII 56] (SCC){{perSCC|LaForest J}} - LaForest J suggesting that electronic surveillance would "annihilate privacy"<br>
R v Wise, [1992] 1 SCR 527, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fsdl 1992 CanLII 125] (SCC){{perSCC|Cory J}} - LaForest J (dissenting) suggesting that surviellance was a "danger to individual autonomy and the organization of a free society”)
</ref>

The Crown and police have a positive obligation not to disseminate irrelevant private communications revealed within a wiretap.<Ref>
R v Guess, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fngn 2000 BCCA 547] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Hall J}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===History===
The modern legislation protecting against the interception of private communications arose from the 1969 Ouimet report which resulted in the Protection of Privacy Act.<Ref>
R. Ouimet, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1969) cited in detail at R v Nguyen, [http://canlii.ca/t/1hjsb 2001 ABPC 52] (CanLII) at para 17<br>
R v Lyons (1984), 15 CCC (3d0 417 at p.453, [http://canlii.ca/t/1lpg0 1984 CanLII 30] (SCC), [1984] 2 SCR 633 - comments on the origin of the wiretap provisions
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}
===Purpose===
The purpose of these provisions is to "strike a balance between the protection of privacy and the availability of effective law enforcement techniques".
<Ref>
Nguyen at para 17<br>
Regina v Welsh and Iannuzzi (No. 6), [http://canlii.ca/t/g19w7 1977 CanLII 1215] (ON CA), (1977) 32 CCC (2d) 363 at p. 369<br>
</ref>

Electronic surveillance has the potential to "annihilate" any expectation of privacy in our communications. Society should not expose us to permanent electronic surveillance.<ref>
R v Duarte, [http://canlii.ca/t/1fszz 1990 CanLII 150] (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 30, (1990), 53 CCC (3d) 1 (SCC) at p. 11 (CCC)<br>
see also United States v White, 201 US 745 (1971) at p.756 ("electronic surveillance is the greatest leveler of human privacy ever known")</ref>

Surveillance is one of the "the greatest leveler[s] of human privacy ever known".<Ref>
United States v White, 201 U.S. 745 (1971) at p. 756
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==="Authorization"===
{{Quotation|
'''Definitions'''<br>
183 In this Part,<Br>
'''authorization''' means an authorization to intercept a private communication given under section 186 or subsection 184.2(3), 184.3(6) or 188(2); (autorisation)<br>
...<br>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 183;
 R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 7, 23, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), s. 213, c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 13, c. 29 (4th Supp.), s. 17, c. 42 (4th Supp.), s. 1;
1991, c. 28, s. 12;
 1992, c. 27, s. 90;
 1993, c. 7, s. 5, c. 25, s. 94, c. 40, s. 1, c. 46, s. 4;
 1995, c. 39, s. 140;
 1996, c. 19, s. 66;
 1997, c. 18, s. 7, c. 23, s. 3;
1998, c. 34, s. 8;
 1999, c. 2, s. 47, c. 5, s. 4;
 2000, c. 24, s. 43;
 2001, c. 32, s. 4, c. 41, ss. 5, 31, 133;
 2002, c. 22, s. 409;
 2004, c. 15, s. 108;
 2005, c. 32, s. 10, c. 43, s. 1;
 2008, c. 6, s. 15;
 2009, c. 2, s. 442, c. 22, s. 4, c. 28, s. 3;
 2010, c. 3, s. 1, c. 14, s. 2;
 2012, c. 1, s. 24;
 2013, c. 8, s. 2, c. 9, s. 14, c. 13, s. 7;
2014, c. 17, s. 2, c. 25, s. 11, c. 31, s. 7, c. 32, s. 59;
 2015, c. 20, s. 19.
|[{{CCCSec|183}} CCC]
}}

==Interception of Private Communications==
==="Private Communication"===
{{seealso|Reasonable Expectation of Privacy}}
Section 183 defines "private communication":
{{quotation|
183.<br>...<br>
"private communication" means any oral communication, or any telecommunication, that is made by an originator who is in Canada or is intended by the originator to be received by a person who is in Canada and that is made under circumstances in which it is reasonable for the originator to expect that it will not be intercepted by any person other than the person intended by the originator to receive it, and includes any radio-based telephone communication that is treated electronically or otherwise for the purpose of preventing intelligible reception by any person other than the person intended by the originator to receive it; (communication privée)
<br>...<br>
...2015, c. 20, s. 19.
|[{{CCCSec|183}} CCC]
}}

;"Private"
A communication is private where the originator has a reasonable expectation that the communication would "not be intercepted by any person other than the person intended by the originator to receive it".<Ref>
R c Kyling, [http://canlii.ca/t/24s1v 2009 QCCS 3311] (CanLII)<br>
</ref>
The intention of who is to receive the communication includes those who the originator had knowledge would receive it but may not desire them to receive it.<ref>
R v Goldman, [http://canlii.ca/t/1tx9c 1979 CanLII 60] (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 976{{perSCC|Mclntyre J}} </ref>

Where it is reasonable to expect that the communication may be listened to or recorded, then it is not a private communication.<ref>
R v Newall, [http://canlii.ca/t/23drc 1982 CanLII 276] (BC SC){{perSCC|Bouck J}}<br>
R v Davie, [http://canlii.ca/t/23lwr 1980 CanLII 323] (BC CA){{perSCC|Hutcheon J}}<br>
</ref>

Communication requires some exchange of information between persons and not simply all information capturable by the interception. <ref>
R v Balatoni, [http://canlii.ca/t/1h55g 2003 CanLII 13174] (ON SC){{perONSC|Dawson J}} at para 8
</ref> Consequently, sounds not intended to convey information does not constitute a communication.<ref>
Balatoni</ref>

;"Communications"
According to s. 183, a "communication" can be either "oral communication" or "telecommunication".

The following has been found not to be a "private communication":
* Electronic signals captured by a digital number recorder (DNR) <ref>
R v Fegan, [http://canlii.ca/t/g16wp 1993 CanLII 8607] (ON CA), (1993), 80 CCC (3d) 356{{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}<br>
c.f. R v Griffith (1989) 44 CCC (3d) 63 (Ont. Dis. Ct.), [http://canlii.ca/t/g91l1 1988 CanLII 7059] (ON SC){{perONSC|McDermid J}} <br></ref>
* communication of a paging device.<ref>
R v Lubovac (1990) 52 CCC (3d) 551 (ABCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/2drds 1989 ABCA 320] (CanLII){{perABCA|McClung JA}}<br>
</ref>
* a prayer to God as God does not meet the legal definition of a person.<ref>
Davie{{supra}}</ref>
* a cassette sent through the mail<ref>
R v Newall, [http://canlii.ca/t/23drc 1982 CanLII 276] (BC SC){{perBCSC|Bouck J}}</ref>
* prayers to God<ref>
Davie{{supra}}
</ref>

;"originator"
The "originator" refers to the person whose "remarks which the Crown seeks to adduce in evidence" and are protected under Part VI of the Code.<ref>
R v Goldman, [http://canlii.ca/t/1tx9c 1979 CanLII 60] (SCC), [1980] 1 SCR 976{{perSCC|Mclntyre J}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==="Telecommunications"===
Section 35 of the Interpretation Act defines "telecommunications" as: "means the emission, transmission or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds or intelligence of any nature by any wire, cable, radio, optical or other electromagnetic system, or by any similar technical system"

This definition was found to include technology such as Dialed number recorders.<ref>
R v Lee, [http://canlii.ca/t/1v9z2 2007 ABQB 767] (CanLII)<br>
R v Croft, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1pvx 2013 ABQB 644] (CanLII) at para 22</ref>

This term is also used in the offence of [[Child Luring (Offence)]], [[Agree or Arrange a Sexual Offence Against Child (Offence)]], and [[Telecommunication Offences (Offence)]].

'''Warrants Apply to Many Types of Communication'''<br>

{{quotation|
'''One application for authorization sufficient'''<Br>
184.6 For greater certainty, an application for an authorization under this Part may be made with respect to both private communications and radio-based telephone communications at the same time.
<Br>
1993, c. 40, s. 4.
|[{{CCCSec|184.6}} CCC]
}}

{{reflist|2}}
==="Interception"===
"Interception" means to "listen to, record or acquire a communication or acquire the substance, meaning or purport thereof;" (s. 183).<ref>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 183; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 7, 23, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), s. 213, c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 13, c. 29 (4th Supp.), s. 17, c. 42 (4th Supp.), s. 1; 1991, c. 28, s. 12; 1992, c. 27, s. 90; 1993, c. 7, s. 5, c. 25, s. 94, c. 40, s. 1, c. 46, s. 4; 1995, c. 39, s. 140; 1996, c. 19, s. 66; 1997, c. 18, s. 7, c. 23, s. 3; 1998, c. 34, s. 8; 1999, c. 2, s. 47, c. 5, s. 4; 2000, c. 24, s. 43; 2001, c. 32, s. 4, c. 41, ss. 5, 31, 133; 2002, c. 22, s. 409; 2004, c. 15, s. 108; 2005, c. 32, s. 10, c. 43, s. 1; 2008, c. 6, s. 15; 2009, c. 2, s. 442, c. 22, s. 4, c. 28, s. 3; 2010, c. 3, s. 1, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 24; 2013, c. 8, s. 2, c. 9, s. 14, c. 13, s. 7; 2014, c. 17, s. 2, c. 25, s. 11, c. 31, s. 7, c. 32, s. 59; 2015, c. 20, s. 19.
</ref>

;Identity of Intended Recipient
A communication that is directed to law enforcement under false assumption of identity is not usually an "intercept" where it is not "participant surveillance".

An online undercover police officer who impersonates a young person and communicates with the accused is not intercepting as there is no "surreptitious" recording of the conversation and no "interception" as between the accused and third party.<ref>
R v Mills, [http://canlii.ca/t/gxfxd 2017 NLCA 12] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Welsh JA}} pending appeal at SCC
</ref>

Telephone communications between the accused and the police who answers the phone at a drug house and assumes the identity of the homeowner are not covered by Part VI.<ref>
R v Singh, [http://canlii.ca/t/1dxvh 1998 CanLII 4819] (BC CA){{perBCCA|Hall JA}}<br>
R v McQueen (1979) 25 CCC (2d) 262 (SKQB), [http://canlii.ca/t/gbj5r 1975 CanLII 1373] (AB CA){{perABCA|McDermid JA}} (“The [wiretap provisions are] aimed at preventing a third party from intercepting the private communication between two people. It is not intended to apply to the case where there are only two persons involved and one receives a message by impersonation of fraud.”)<br>
see also R v Giles, [http://canlii.ca/t/1w8ms 2007 BCSC 1147] (CanLII){{perBCSC|MacKenzie JA}}, at para 31<br>
</ref>

;Timing of Capture
There is the suggestion that there does not need to be a direct temporal connection between the message seizure and the transmission of the message.<ref>
R v Telus Communications, [http://canlii.ca/t/fwq20 2013 SCC 16] (CanLII){{Plurality}} ''per'' plurality reasons at para 35 ("definition of “intercept” that the interception of a private communication be simultaneous or contemporaneous with the making of the communication itself")</ref>

Text messages ''saved'' within the network of a service provider can be otained by a production order as it is not an "intercept".<ref>
R v Jones, [2017] 2 SCR 696, [http://canlii.ca/t/hp63x 2017 SCC 60] (CanLII){{perSCC|Cote J}}<br>
R v Belcourt, [http://canlii.ca/t/ggrxf 2015 BCCA 126] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Kirkpatrick JA}}<br>
R v Webster, [http://canlii.ca/t/gjn8s 2015 BCCA 286] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Chiasson JA}}<br>
R v Didechko, [http://canlii.ca/t/gll4w 2015 ABQB 642] (CanLII){{perABQB|Schutz J}}<br>
c.f. R v Hoelscher, [http://canlii.ca/t/gn6l6 2016 ABQB 44] (CanLII){{perABQB|Simpson J}}<br>
R v Croft, [http://canlii.ca/t/g1t5p 2013 ABQB 640] (CanLII){{perABCA|Burrows J}} <Br>
</ref> 
It will be required where the message has not yet come into existence.<ref>
Jones{{ibid}}
</ref>

;Devices Used to Intercept
The interception must be done by way of an "electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device" (s.183).
Consequently, simply to use one's human senses without technological aids does not invoke Part VI.
<ref>
R v Beckner (1978), 43 CCC (2d) 356, [http://canlii.ca/t/htwbs 1978 CanLII 2511] (ON CA){{perONCA|Dubin JA}} -- officer overhears a conversation between accused and a friend<br>
R v Kopinsky, [http://canlii.ca/t/27t7j 1985 CanLII 1191] (AB QB){{perABQB|McFadyen J}}</ref>

{{quotation|
'''Definitions'''<br>
183 In this Part,
<Br>...<Br>
'''electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device''' means any device or apparatus that is used or is capable of being used to intercept a private communication, but does not include a hearing aid used to correct subnormal hearing of the user to not better than normal hearing; (dispositif électromagnétique, acoustique, mécanique ou autre)
<Br>...<Br>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 183;
... 2000, c. 24, s. 43;
 2001, c. 32, s. 4, c. 41, ss. 5, 31, 133;
 2002, c. 22, s. 409;
 2004, c. 15, s. 108;
 2005, c. 32, s. 10, c. 43, s. 1;
 2008, c. 6, s. 15;
 2009, c. 2, s. 442, c. 22, s. 4, c. 28, s. 3;
 2010, c. 3, s. 1, c. 14, s. 2;
 2012, c. 1, s. 24;
 2013, c. 8, s. 2, c. 9, s. 14, c. 13, s. 7;
2014, c. 17, s. 2, c. 25, s. 11, c. 31, s. 7, c. 32, s. 59;
 2015, c. 20, s. 19.
|[{{CCCSec|183}} CCC]
}}
{{reflist|2}}

==="Offence"===
Within the provisions of the wiretap sections of the code, "offence" refers to a specific closed-list of offences. Those offences are listed within s. 2.<ref>
See [[Criminal Code and Related Definitions#Wiretap .22Offence.22|Criminal Code and Related Definitions]]
</ref> It will include any conspiracies, attempts or counselling to commit the offence, or any accessories after the fact.<ref>see s. 183 definition of "offence"</ref>

* See [[List of Designated Wiretap Eligible Offences]]

{{reflist|2}}

==Misc Wiretap Terms==
{{quotation|
'''Definitions'''<br>
183 In this Part,
<br>...<br>
'''police officer''' means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace; (policier)
<br>...<br>
'''public switched telephone network''' means a telecommunication facility the primary purpose of which is to provide a land line-based telephone service to the public for compensation; (réseau téléphonique public commuté)
<Br>
'''radio-based telephone communication''' means any radiocommunication within the meaning of the Radiocommunication Act that is made over apparatus that is used primarily for connection to a public switched telephone network; (communication radiotéléphonique)
<br>
'''sell''' includes offer for sale, expose for sale, have in possession for sale or distribute or advertise for sale; (vendre)
solicitor means, in the Province of Quebec, an advocate or a notary and, in any other province, a barrister or solicitor. (avocat)
<br>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 183; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 7, 23, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), s. 213, c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 13, c. 29 (4th Supp.), s. 17, c. 42 (4th Supp.), s. 1; 1991, c. 28, s. 12; 1992, c. 27, s. 90; 1993, c. 7, s. 5, c. 25, s. 94, c. 40, s. 1, c. 46, s. 4; 1995, c. 39, s. 140; 1996, c. 19, s. 66; 1997, c. 18, s. 7, c. 23, s. 3; 1998, c. 34, s. 8; 1999, c. 2, s. 47, c. 5, s. 4; 2000, c. 24, s. 43; 2001, c. 32, s. 4, c. 41, ss. 5, 31, 133; 2002, c. 22, s. 409; 2004, c. 15, s. 108; 2005, c. 32, s. 10, c. 43, s. 1; 2008, c. 6, s. 15; 2009, c. 2, s. 442, c. 22, s. 4, c. 28, s. 3; 2010, c. 3, s. 1, c. 14, s. 2; 2012, c. 1, s. 24; 2013, c. 8, s. 2, c. 9, s. 14, c. 13, s. 7;
2014, c. 17, s. 2, c. 25, s. 11, c. 31, s. 7, c. 32, s. 59; 2015, c. 20, s. 19.
|[{{CCCSec|183}} CCC]
}}

{{quotation|
'''Interception to prevent bodily harm'''<br>
184.1 (1) ...<Br>
'''Definition of agent of the state'''<br>
(4) For the purposes of this section, agent of the state means
:(a) a peace officer; and
:(b) a person acting under the authority of, or in cooperation with, a peace officer.
<br>
1993, c. 40, s. 4.
|[{{CCCSec|184.1}} CCC]
}}

==Topics==
* [[Intercept of Private Communications (Offence)]]
* [[Third Party Wiretaps]] (s. 185 and 186)
* [[Consent Wiretaps]]
* [[Warrantless Wiretaps]]
* [[Admitting Wiretap Evidence]]
* [[Sealing and Unsealing Judicial Authorizations]]
* [[Execution of Search Warrants#Execution of Wiretap Warrant|Execution of Wiretap]]
* [[Annual Wiretap Reports]]

{{WarrantNavBar}}