View source for Investigative Necessity

{{HeaderWiretaps}}
==General Principles==
{{Seealso|Third-Party Intercept Authorizations}}
Section 186(1)(b) requires that the applicant establish the "investigative necessity" of the wiretap before it can be authorized. That provision states:
{{quotation2|
;Judge to be satisfied
186 (1)  An authorization under this section may be given if the judge to whom the application is made is satisfied
:{{removed|(a)}}
:(b)  that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed or the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures.
{{removed2|[[Third-Party Intercept Authorizations|(1.1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (5.1), (5.2), (6), (7) and (8)]]}}
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 186; {{LegHistory90s|1993, c. 40}}, s. 6; {{LegHistory90s|1997, c. 23}}, s. 5; {{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 5}}, s. 5; {{LegHistory00s|2001, c. 32}}, s. 6, c. 41, ss. 6.1, 133; {{LegHistory00s|2005, c. 10}}, ss. 23, 34; {{LegHistory10s|2014, c. 17}}, s. 4.
|{{CCCSec2|186}}
|{{NoteUp|186|1}}
}}

Consideration of necessity balances the needs of the criminal investigations as against protecting privacy rights.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Araujo|5231|2000 SCC 65 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 SCR 992}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (9:0){{atsL|5231|22| and 26}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Andrews, Leyva and Hamid|j4b3w|2020 ONSC 49 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Petersen J}}{{atL|j4b3w|24}}<br>
</ref>

; Scope of Necessity
Necessity does not imply that the use of interception is only a "tool of last resort," it simply requires that there is, "practically speaking, no other reasonable alternative method of investigation, in the circumstances of the particular criminal inquiry."<Ref>
Araujo
</ref>
Necessity applies to the investigation "as a whole" and not to individual named suspects.<Ref>
{{CanLIIR|Tahirkheli|6gdq|1998 CanLII 6243 (ON CA)|130 CCC (3d) 19}}{{atL|6gdq|4}}
</ref>

The police has the duty to inform the judge of the progress of the investigation and the reasons why other techniques are not viable in the circumstances.<ref>
{{ibid1|Andrews, Leyva and Hamid}}{{atL|j4b3w|24}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Morrison|g97g6|1989 CanLII 7114 (ON CA)|50 CCC (3d) 353}}{{perONCA|Morden JA}}{{atp|369}}
</ref>

; Elements of Investigative Necessity
There are three ways to establish investigative necessity. The applicant must establish:<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Pham|26gj9|2009 CanLII 60792 (ON SC)}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{AtL|26gj9|89}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Duarte|1fszz|1990 CanLII 150 (SCC)|[1990] 1 SCR 30}}{{perSCC|La Forest J}}<br>
{{supra1|Araujo}}{{atL|5231|34}}<br>
see also 185(1)(h) and 186(1)(b).
</ref>
# other investigative measures "have been tried and have failed",
# other investigative procedures are "unlikely to succeed", or
# the "urgency of the matter" is such that "it would be impractical to carry out the investigation" of the offence "using only other investigative procedures."

The applicant need ''only'' establish one of the three elements.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Smyk et al.|1npk8|1993 CanLII 3370 (MB CA)|86 CCC (3d) 63}}{{perMBCA|Philp JA}} (3:0){{atL|1npk8|70}}
</ref>

Necessity requires "no other reasonable alternative method of investigation, in the circumstances of the particular criminal inquiry."<ref>
{{supra1|Araujo}}{{atL|5231|29}}<br>
</ref>

The consideration must be based on the "context of the whole investigation" and "not on a target by target basis or each known person's involvement."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Tahirkheli|6gdq|1998 CanLII 6243 (ON CA)| (1998) 130 CCC (3d) 19}}{{perONCA|Finlayson and Labrosse JJA}}{{atp|22}} (ONCA)<br>
{{supra1|Mahal}}{{atsL|ft2c8|42 and 76}}<br>
</ref>

<!-- {{fix}}
[24]        Investigative necessity has been interpreted by the courts with a simultaneous awareness of the competing values of enabling criminal investigations by law enforcement and protecting privacy rights: Araujo, at paras. 22 and 26. The police affiant has a responsibility to fully inform the authorizing judge of the progress of the police investigation to date as well as the reasons why other investigative techniques are not viable in the circumstances: R v Morrison (1989), 1989 CanLII 7114 (ON CA), 50 CCC (3d) 353, at p. 369 (Ont. C.A.). The authorizing judge need not be satisfied that the interception of private communications is being used by the police as a “last resort”. However, the authorizing judge must be satisfied that, “practically speaking [there is] no other reasonable alternative method of investigation, in the circumstances of the particular criminal inquiry”: Araujo, at para. 29.

-->
{{reflist|2}}
===Tried and Failed===
It is not necessary that "all alternative investigative techniques have been tried." That is, the authorization need not be proven as a "last resort."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Araujo|5231|2000 SCC 65 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 SCR 992}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (9:0){{atsL|5231|29|}} and {{atsL-np|5231|34|}}<br>
</ref>
{{reflist|2}}

The consideration of necessity involves "regard both to the nature and purpose of the particular investigation which the police wish to undertake."<ref>
{{ibid1|Araujo}}{{AtL|5231|29}}<br>
</ref>

===Likelihood of Success===
A judge may place "considerable weight on the police officer's opinions as to the probable success of various types of possible investigative procedures". Some deference should be given an officer's expertise.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Paris and Normand|1n1gb|2006 CanLII 11655 (ON CA)|69 WCB (2d) 743}}{{perONCA|MacFarland JA}}{{AtL|1n1gb|22}}<br>
</ref>

The judge should consider the effectiveness and danger associated with using alternate means such as surveillance and informers.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Araujo|5231|2000 SCC 65 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 SCR 992}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (9:0){{atsL|5231|40|, 42}}<br>
</ref>
{{Reflist|2}}
===Specific Types of Investigations===
Investigations of "international drug smuggling" would largely favour the necessity for an authorization.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Tahirkheli|6gdq|1998 CanLII 6243 (ON CA)|130 CCC (3d) 19}}{{perONCA|Finlayson and Labrosse JJA}}{{atL|6gdq|22}}<br>
</ref>

Similarly, investigations targeting "higher-up" or "ringleader" members of a drug trafficking ring would favour the need for an authorization.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Araujo|5231|2000 SCC 65 (CanLII)|[2000] 2 SCR 992}}{{perSCC|LeBel J}} (9:0){{atsL|5231|40|, 43}}<br>
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Exceptions for Criminal Organizations and Terrorism Offences==

{{quotation2|
185 <br>
{{removed|(1)}}
; Exception for criminal organizations and terrorist groups
(1.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(h) {{AnnSec1|185(1)(h)}}, that paragraph does not apply where the application for an authorization is in relation to
:(a) an offence under section 467.11 {{AnnSec4|467.11}}, 467.111 {{AnnSec4|467.111}}, 467.12 {{AnnSec4|467.12}} or 467.13 {{AnnSec4|467.13}};
:(b) an offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization; or
:(c) a terrorism offence.

{{removed|(2), (3) and (4)}}
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 185; 
{{LegHistory90s|1993, c. 40}}, s. 5; 
{{LegHistory90s|1997, c. 18}}, s. 8, {{LegHistory90sA|1997|c. 23}}, s. 4; 
{{LegHistory00s|2001, c. 32}}, s. 5, {{LegHistory00sA|2001|c. 41}}, ss. 6, 133; 
{{LegHistory00s|2005, c. 10}}, ss. 22, 34; 
{{LegHistory10s|2014, c. 17}}, s. 3.
{{Annotation}}
|{{CCCSec2|185}}
|{{NoteUp|185|1.1}}
}}

{{quotation2|
186<Br>
{{removed|(1)}}
; Exception for criminal organizations and terrorism offences
(1.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(b) {{AnnSec1|186(1)(b)}}, that paragraph does not apply where the judge is satisfied that the application for an authorization is in relation to
:(a) an offence under section 467.11 {{AnnSec4|467.1q}}, 467.111 {{AnnSec4|467.111}}, 467.12 {{AnnSec4|467.12}} or 467.13 {{AnnSec4|467.13}};
:(b) an offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization; or
:(c) a terrorism offence.

{{removed|(2), (3), (4), (5), (5.1), (5.2), (6), (7) and (8)}}
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 186; 
{{LegHistory90s|1993, c. 40}}, s. 6; 
{{LegHistory90s|1997, c. 23}}, s. 5; 
{{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 5}}, s. 5; 
{{LegHistory00s|2001, c. 32}}, s. 6, {{LegHistory00sA|2001|c. 41}}, ss. 6.1, 133; 
{{LegHistory00s|2005, c. 10}}, ss. 23, 34; 
{{LegHistory10s|2014, c. 17}}, s. 4, c. 31, s. 9.
{{Annotation}}
|{{CCCSec2|186}}
|{{NoteUp|186|1.1}}
}}


; Constitutionality
Section 186(1.1) has been found not to violate s. 7 of the Charter.<Ref>
{{CanLIIR|Accused No. 1 et al|1m5w6|2005 BCSC 1727 (CanLII)}}
</ref>
Likewise, 185(1.1) has also been found not to violate s. 7 of the Charter.<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Pangman|4vwn|2000 MBQB 85 (CanLII)}}
</ref>