Interception of Private Communications: Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "(R v [A-Z][a-z]+)," to "''$1''," |
m Text replacement - "\{\{fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "fr:$1" |
||
(147 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[fr:écoutes_téléphoniques]] | |||
{{Currency2|January|2023}} | |||
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderWiretaps}} | {{LevelZero}}{{HeaderWiretaps}} | ||
==General Principles== | ==General Principles== | ||
Wiretaps are governed by Part VI of | Wiretaps are governed by Part VI {{CCC}} (Invasion of Privacy (ss. 183 to 196.1)). | ||
There are | There are five categories of interception/wiretap: | ||
* | * [[Third-Party Intercept Authorizations]] (185 and 186) | ||
* | * [[One-Party Consent Intercept Authorizations|One-Party Consent (OPC) Intercept authorization]] (184.2) | ||
* | * [[One-Party Consent Intercepts to Prevent Bodily Harm]] (184.1) | ||
* | * [[Third-Party Intercept to Prevent Imminent Harm]] (184.4) | ||
* [[Emergency Intercepts]] (188) | |||
* [[Video Surveillance]] (487.01) | |||
* [[Tracking Warrants]] (492.1(1) and 492.1(2)) | |||
; Eligible Applicants, Offences and Level of Court | |||
Authorizations for a third-party intercept under s. 185 and 186 can only be authorized by a judge of a superior court. | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
! Type of Intercept !! Section !! Applicant !! [[Definition of Judicial Officers and Offices|Court]] !! Offences !! Notes | |||
|- | |||
| [[Third-Party Intercept Authorizations]] || 185 and 186 <br> || Designated Agent || Superior ||s. 183 offences <br>("has been, or is being") || 90 day notice<Br>Investigative Necessity | |||
|- | |||
| [[One-Party Consent Intercept Authorizations|One-Party Consent (OPC) Intercept authorization]] ||184.2 || peace officer, public officer, Designated Agent || Provincial or Superior ||Any <br>("has been or will be committed") ||None | |||
|- | |||
| [[One-Party Consent Intercepts to Prevent Bodily Harm]]|| 184.1 || NA || NA ||Any || None | |||
|- | |||
| [[Third-Party Intercept to Prevent Imminent Harm]] ||184.4 || NA || NA ||s. 183 offences <br>("has been, or is being") || Notice | |||
|- | |||
| [[Emergency Intercepts]]|| 188 || a designated peace officer|| Superior ||s. 183 offences <br>("has been, or is being") || Notice | |||
|- | |||
| [[Video Surveillance]] ||487.01 || Designated Agent || Superior ||s. 183 offences<br>("has been, or is being") || Investigative necessity<Ref>if there is no consent</ref> | |||
|- | |||
| [[Tracking Warrants]]|| 492.1(1) and 492.1(2) || peace officer or public officer ||JP, Provincial or Superior || Any || None | |||
|} | |||
; Warrantless | |||
The One-Party Consent Wiretap to Prevent Bodily Harm (s. 184.1) and Third-Party Wiretap to Prevent Serious Harm (s. 184.4) do not require judicial authorization. | |||
; Section 8 of the Charter | |||
An interception of a private communication under a Part VI authorization is a search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.<ref> | An interception of a private communication under a Part VI authorization is a search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.<ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Grant|1f973|1999 CanLII 3694 (ON CA)|132 CCC (3d) 531}}{{perSCC|Charron J}}{{atp|539}} [CCC] | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
; Offence | |||
A wilful interception of "a private communication" without authorization is an 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)). | |||
; Disclosure of Packet | |||
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> | 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> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Garofoli|1fss5|1990 CanLII 52 (SCC)|[1990] 2 SCR 1421}}{{perSCC-H|Sopinka J}}{{atps|1433, 1452}} [SCR]</ref> | |||
</ref> | |||
; Vetting | |||
The Crown and police have a positive obligation not to disseminate irrelevant private communications revealed within a wiretap.<Ref> | The Crown and police have a positive obligation not to disseminate irrelevant private communications revealed within a wiretap.<Ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Guess|1fngn|2000 BCCA 547 (CanLII)|148 CCC (3d) 321}}{{perBCCA|Hall J}}<br> | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Line 34: | Line 58: | ||
===History=== | ===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> | 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. Ouimet, Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections, Towards Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections (Ottawa: Information Canada, 1969) cited in detail at {{CanLIIRP|Nguyen|1hjsb|2001 ABPC 52 (CanLII)|294 AR 201}}{{perABPC|Stevenson ACJ}}{{atL|1hjsb|17}}<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Lyons|1lpg0|1984 CanLII 30 (SCC)|[1984] 2 SCR 633, 15 CCC (3d) 417}}{{perSCC|Estey J}}{{atp|453}} (CCC) - comments on the origin of the wiretap provisions | |||
</ref> | |||
; Constitutionality | |||
It was found that the interception regime in Part VI of the Code is constitutional.<REf> | |||
R v Finlay Grelette (1985) 23CCCC (3d) 38 at paras 63 to 64 | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
===Purpose=== | ===Purpose=== | ||
Part VI of the Code regulates the "power of the state to record communications that their originator expects will not be intercepted" | 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> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Duarte|1fszz|1990 CanLII 150 (SCC)|[1990] 1 SCR 30}}{{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> | |||
</ref> It avoids the "danger inherent in allowing the state, in its unfettered discretion, to record and transmit our words."<ref> | {{CanLIIRP|Wong|1fsq9|1990 CanLII 56 (SCC)|[1990] 3 SCR 36}}{{perSCC|LaForest J}} - Judge suggests that electronic surveillance would "annihilate privacy"<br> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Wise|1fsdl|1992 CanLII 125 (SCC)|[1992] 1 SCR 527}}{{perSCC|LaForest J}} (dissenting) suggesting that surviellance was a "danger to individual autonomy and the organization of a free society”) | |||
</ref> | |||
Part VI of the Code regulates the "power of the state to record communications that their originator expects will not be intercepted."<ref> | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Duarte|1fszz|1990 CanLII 150 (SCC)|[1990] 1 SCR 30}}{{perSCC|La Forest J}} | |||
{{CanLIIRP|Jones|hp63x|2017 SCC 60 (CanLII)|[2017] 2 SCR 696}}{{perSCC|Cote J}}{{atL|hp63x|60}}<br> | |||
</ref> | |||
It avoids the "danger inherent in allowing the state, in its unfettered discretion, to record and transmit our words."<ref> | |||
{{supra1|Duarte}} | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
These provisions aim to "strike a balance between the protection of privacy and the availability of effective law enforcement techniques". | These provisions aim to "strike a balance between the protection of privacy and the availability of effective law enforcement techniques". | ||
<Ref> | <Ref> | ||
{{CanLIIRP|Nguyen|1hjsb|2001 ABPC 52 (CanLII)|294 AR 201}}{{perABPC|Stevenson ACJ}}{{atL|1hjsb|17}}<br> | |||
Regina v Welsh and Iannuzzi (No. 6) | {{CanLIIRPC|Regina v Welsh and Iannuzzi (No. 6)|g19w7|1977 CanLII 1215 (ON CA)|32 CCC (2d) 363}}{{perONCA|Zuber JA}} (5:0){{atp|369}}<br> | ||
</ref> | </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> | Electronic surveillance has the potential to "annihilate" any expectation of privacy in our communications. Society should not expose us to permanent electronic surveillance.<ref> | ||
Duarte{{ | {{supra1|Duarte}}{{atp|11}} (CCC)<br> | ||
see also United States v White, 201 US 745 (1971) | see also ''United States v White'', 201 US 745 (1971){{atp|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> | Surveillance is one of the "the greatest leveler[s] of human privacy ever known".<Ref> | ||
United States v White, 201 U.S. 745 (1971) | ''United States v White'', 201 U.S. 745 (1971){{atp|756}} | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
This provision has ''nothing'' to do with protecting persons from the risk that the recipient of the communication will divulge anything.<Ref> | This provision has ''nothing'' to do with protecting persons from the risk that the recipient of the communication will divulge anything.<Ref> | ||
{{supra1|Duarte}} ("has nothing to do with protecting individuals from the threat that their interlocutors will divulge communications that are meant to be private") | |||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} | ||
==Misc Wiretap Terms== | ==Misc Wiretap Terms== | ||
{{ | {{quotation3| | ||
; Definitions | |||
183 In this Part, | 183 In this Part {{AnnSec|Part VI}},<Br> | ||
< | '''"authorization"''' means an authorization to intercept a private communication given under subsection 184.2(3) {{AnnSec1|184.2(3)}}, section 186 {{AnnSec1|186}} or subsection 188(2) {{AnnSec1|188(2)}}; (autorisation) | ||
'''police officer''' means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace; (policier) | {{ellipsis}} | ||
'''"police officer"''' means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace; (policier)<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) | {{ellipsis}} | ||
<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) | '''"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> | ||
<br> | '''"sell"''' includes offer for sale, expose for sale, have in possession for sale or distribute or advertise for sale; (vendre)<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> | ||
solicitor means, in the Province of Quebec, an advocate or a notary and, in any other province, a barrister or solicitor. (avocat) | {{History-S183}} | ||
<br> | |{{CCCSec2|183}} | ||
|{{NoteUp|183}} | |||
|{{Terms- | |||
| | |"private communication" (s. 183) | ||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
==Topics== | ==Topics== | ||
* [[Definition of Interception of Private Communications]] | |||
* [[Intercept of Private Communications (Offence)]] | * [[Intercept of Private Communications (Offence)]] | ||
* [[Third Party Wiretaps]] (s. 185 and 186) | * [[Third Party Wiretaps]] (s. 185 and 186) | ||
** [[List of Designated Wiretap Eligible Offences]] | |||
* [[Consent Wiretaps]] | * [[Consent Wiretaps]] | ||
* [[Warrantless Wiretaps]] | * [[Video Surveillance]] | ||
* [[Warrantless Wiretaps]] (intercept for safety or emergency) | |||
* [[Admitting Wiretap Evidence]] | * [[Admitting Wiretap Evidence]] | ||
* [[Sealing and Unsealing Judicial Authorizations]] | * [[Sealing and Unsealing Judicial Authorizations]] |
Latest revision as of 14:23, 14 July 2024
This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2023. (Rev. # 95328) |
- < Search and Seizure
- < Warrant Searches
- < Wiretaps
General Principles
Wiretaps are governed by Part VI of the Criminal Code (Invasion of Privacy (ss. 183 to 196.1)).
There are five categories of interception/wiretap:
- Third-Party Intercept Authorizations (185 and 186)
- One-Party Consent (OPC) Intercept authorization (184.2)
- One-Party Consent Intercepts to Prevent Bodily Harm (184.1)
- Third-Party Intercept to Prevent Imminent Harm (184.4)
- Emergency Intercepts (188)
- Video Surveillance (487.01)
- Tracking Warrants (492.1(1) and 492.1(2))
- Eligible Applicants, Offences and Level of Court
Authorizations for a third-party intercept under s. 185 and 186 can only be authorized by a judge of a superior court.
Type of Intercept | Section | Applicant | Court | Offences | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Third-Party Intercept Authorizations | 185 and 186 |
Designated Agent | Superior | s. 183 offences ("has been, or is being") |
90 day notice Investigative Necessity |
One-Party Consent (OPC) Intercept authorization | 184.2 | peace officer, public officer, Designated Agent | Provincial or Superior | Any ("has been or will be committed") |
None |
One-Party Consent Intercepts to Prevent Bodily Harm | 184.1 | NA | NA | Any | None |
Third-Party Intercept to Prevent Imminent Harm | 184.4 | NA | NA | s. 183 offences ("has been, or is being") |
Notice |
Emergency Intercepts | 188 | a designated peace officer | Superior | s. 183 offences ("has been, or is being") |
Notice |
Video Surveillance | 487.01 | Designated Agent | Superior | s. 183 offences ("has been, or is being") |
Investigative necessity[1] |
Tracking Warrants | 492.1(1) and 492.1(2) | peace officer or public officer | JP, Provincial or Superior | Any | None |
- Warrantless
The One-Party Consent Wiretap to Prevent Bodily Harm (s. 184.1) and Third-Party Wiretap to Prevent Serious Harm (s. 184.4) do not require judicial authorization.
- Section 8 of the Charter
An interception of a private communication under a Part VI authorization is a search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.[2]
- Offence
A wilful interception of "a private communication" without authorization is an 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)).
- Disclosure of Packet
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.[3]
- Vetting
The Crown and police have a positive obligation not to disseminate irrelevant private communications revealed within a wiretap.[4]
- ↑ if there is no consent
- ↑ R v Grant, 1999 CanLII 3694 (ON CA), 132 CCC (3d) 531, per Charron J, at p. 539 [CCC]
- ↑ R v Garofoli, 1990 CanLII 52 (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 1421, per Sopinka J, at pp. 1433, 1452 [SCR]
- ↑
R v Guess, 2000 BCCA 547 (CanLII), 148 CCC (3d) 321, per Hall J
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.[1]
- Constitutionality
It was found that the interception regime in Part VI of the Code is constitutional.[2]
- ↑
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, 2001 ABPC 52 (CanLII), 294 AR 201, per Stevenson ACJ, at para 17
R v Lyons, 1984 CanLII 30 (SCC), [1984] 2 SCR 633, 15 CCC (3d) 417, per Estey J, at p. 453 (CCC) - comments on the origin of the wiretap provisions - ↑ R v Finlay Grelette (1985) 23CCCC (3d) 38 at paras 63 to 64
Purpose
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.[1]
Part VI of the Code regulates the "power of the state to record communications that their originator expects will not be intercepted."[2] It avoids the "danger inherent in allowing the state, in its unfettered discretion, to record and transmit our words."[3]
These provisions aim to "strike a balance between the protection of privacy and the availability of effective law enforcement techniques". [4]
Electronic surveillance has the potential to "annihilate" any expectation of privacy in our communications. Society should not expose us to permanent electronic surveillance.[5]
Surveillance is one of the "the greatest leveler[s] of human privacy ever known".[6]
This provision has nothing to do with protecting persons from the risk that the recipient of the communication will divulge anything.[7]
- ↑
R v Duarte, 1990 CanLII 150 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 30, per LaForest J - Judge referring to electronic surveillance as "superbly" equipped to fight crime, but left unregulated would mean "privacy no longer had any meaning"
R v Wong, 1990 CanLII 56 (SCC), [1990] 3 SCR 36, per LaForest J - Judge suggests that electronic surveillance would "annihilate privacy"
R v Wise, 1992 CanLII 125 (SCC), [1992] 1 SCR 527, per LaForest J (dissenting) suggesting that surviellance was a "danger to individual autonomy and the organization of a free society”) - ↑
R v Duarte, 1990 CanLII 150 (SCC), [1990] 1 SCR 30, per La Forest J
R v Jones, 2017 SCC 60 (CanLII), [2017] 2 SCR 696, per Cote J, at para 60
- ↑ Duarte, supra
- ↑
R v Nguyen, 2001 ABPC 52 (CanLII), 294 AR 201, per Stevenson ACJ, at para 17
Regina v Welsh and Iannuzzi (No. 6), 1977 CanLII 1215 (ON CA), 32 CCC (2d) 363, per Zuber JA (5:0), at p. 369
- ↑
Duarte, supra, at p. 11 (CCC)
see also United States v White, 201 US 745 (1971), at p. 756 ("electronic surveillance is the greatest leveler of human privacy ever known") - ↑ United States v White, 201 U.S. 745 (1971), at p. 756
- ↑ Duarte, supra ("has nothing to do with protecting individuals from the threat that their interlocutors will divulge communications that are meant to be private")
Misc Wiretap Terms
- Definitions
183 In this Part [Pt. VI – Invasion of Privacy (ss. 183 to 196.1)],
"authorization" means an authorization to intercept a private communication given under subsection 184.2(3) [one-party consent wiretap – judge must be satisfied], section 186 [authorization of wiretap] or subsection 188(2) [emergency wiretaps – granting authorization]; (autorisation) ...
"police officer" means any officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace; (policier)
...
"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)
"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)
"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)
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; 2017, c. 7, s. 56; 2018, c. 12, s. 114, c. 16, s. 210, c. 26, s. 23, c. 29, s. 15; 2019, c. 13, s. 150; 2019, c. 16, s. 122; 2019, c. 25, s. 63.1; 2020, c. 1, s. 36; 2022, c. 17, s. 5; 2023, c. 14, s. 2.
Topics
- Definition of Interception of Private Communications
- Intercept of Private Communications (Offence)
- Third Party Wiretaps (s. 185 and 186)
- Consent Wiretaps
- Video Surveillance
- Warrantless Wiretaps (intercept for safety or emergency)
- Admitting Wiretap Evidence
- Sealing and Unsealing Judicial Authorizations
- Execution of Wiretap
- Annual Wiretap Reports
|
- 2023
- Level Zero
- Search and Seizure
- Warrant Searches
- Interceptions
- 1985, c. C-46
- 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)
- 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.)
- 1985, c. 1 (4th Supp.)
- 1985, c. 29 (4th Supp.)
- 1985, c. 42 (4th Supp.)
- 1991, c. 28
- 1992, c. 27
- 1993, c. 7
- 1993, c. 25
- 1993, c. 40
- 1993, c. 46
- 1995, c. 39
- 1996, c. 19
- 1997, c. 18
- 1997, c. 23
- 1998, c. 34
- 1999, c. 2
- 1999, c. 5
- 2000, c. 24
- 2001, c. 32
- 2001, c. 41
- 2002, c. 22
- 2004, c. 15
- 2005, c. 32
- 2005, c. 43
- 2008, c. 6
- 2009, c. 2
- 2009, c. 22
- 2009, c. 28
- 2010, c. 3
- 2010, c. 14
- 2012, c. 1
- 2013, c. 8
- 2013, c. 9
- 2013, c. 13
- 2014, c. 17
- 2014, c. 25
- 2014, c. 31
- 2014, c. 32
- 2015, c. 20
- 2017, c. 7
- 2018, c. 12
- 2018, c. 16
- 2018, c. 26
- 2018, c. 29
- 2019, c. 13
- 2019, c. 16
- 2019, c. 25
- 2020, c. 1
- 2022, c. 17
- 2023, c. 14