585:(Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.) made similar critical remarks: "Mr. Speaker, Bill C-55, the bill we are debating today, needs to be seen against the backdrop of Bill C-30, the government's Internet surveillance bill introduced in February 2012. When Bill C-30 was tabled it crashed and burned, largely because the government failed to do its homework. Mainly, the government did not Charter-proof the bill or listen to telecommunications service providers about the impracticality of some of Bill C-30's key provisions, nor did the government properly gauge Canadians' views about such a bill in advance of introducing it."
29:
601:
of individuals must be appropriately limited by the law. We understand that in very narrow circumstances, the police may need to act immediately to stop serious and imminent harm. However, it is all the more important that this extraordinary power not be used indefinitely where no warrant is required. A 24-hour limit on the use of the warrantless wiretap will give the police clear guidance about how they can use this power appropriately."
578:, NDP member from Gatineau and her party’s justice critic, made some critical remarks when Bill C-55 was debated at second in the House of Commons: "I cannot believe that the brilliant legal minds at the Department of Justice took 11 months to draft Bill C-55. The fact is that the Conservatives made a serious mistake at the outset. They introduced Bill C-30 thinking that it would solve every conceivable problem related to wiretaps."
597:(BCCLA) appeared before the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on March 6, 2013, it demanded changes to Bill C-55, which would allow emergency warrantless wiretaps of unlimited duration. In particular, the BCCLA urged Parliament to limit emergency warrantless wiretapping by the police to a 24-hour period.
512:. However, the Court declared that Section 184.4 of the Criminal Code (interception in exceptional circumstances), which was enacted in 1993, was unconstitutional because it contained no accountability measures. The Supreme Court gave Parliament until April 13, 2013 to amend the provision to make it constitutionally compliant.
600:
Ms. Raji Mangat, Counsel at the BCCLA, said during her testimony, "A wiretap captures all communications taking place on the tapped device, including any and all manner of private, personal and possibly even privileged, confidential communications. Sweeping powers that intrude on the privacy rights
397:
Section 188 allows the police to seek prior judicial authorization in urgent situations. The Court found that section 188 does not do away with the need to be able to do a wiretap in an emergency situation, where even the reduced amount of time to obtain the section 188 authorization would take too
382:
The Court noted that section 184.4 was the only provision in
Canadian law for a wiretap that did not require the consent of one of the parties or require a pre-authorization, does not require prior notice, and has no legislated or judicially authorized time-limits. However, section 184.4 is limited
479:
test requires that proportionality between the legislation and the objectives of the legislation. In this case, the ability to meet the objective of section 184.4 (using wiretaps in emergency situations) would not be impacted by a notice requirement. It would allow targeted individuals to later
519:, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, introduced Bill C-55, An Act to amend the Criminal Code ("Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act") that directly responds to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in
612:
Bill C-55 passed its third reading in the House of
Commons on March 20, 2013. On March 26, 2013, Bill C-55 has been adopted by the Senate legislative committee. It was subsequently referred back to the Senate for the third reading and received Royal Assent on March 27, 2013.
450:
The Court noted that sections 184.1 and 184.4 had different pre-requisites, and such statutory limitations for section 184.4 were not necessary. The Court chose not to comment on whether the intercepts would be admissible in proceedings unrelated to the emergency situation.
410:
The Court found that notice ensured that the police would not abuse their extraordinary powers, and provides transparency to the process. As a result, the Court concluded that the lack of "after-the-fact" notice provisions rendered the current legislation unconstitutional.
344:. This decision was part of a line of cases in the trial courts of British Columbia, Quebec and Ontario which found section 184.4 unconstitutional (but which differed in how to remedy the situation). The evidence was nonetheless admitted as evidence under
406:
Other emergency legislation in Canada, which do not require prior judicial authorization, still requires an "after-the-fact" notice to be made to a judge or justice of the peace. Section 184.4 has no "after-the-fact" notice requirement.
492:
While it was open to the Court to read in a notice requirement, the Court found that it would be inappropriate in this case due to other concerns about the legislation expressed to the Court that the Court chose not to rule on.
526:
During his press conference on the same day, Minister
Nicholson said the controversial Bill C-30, known as the online surveillance or warrantless wiretapping bill, won't go ahead due to opposition from the public.
336:
As a result of the wiretap evidence, Yat Fung Albert Tse, Nhan Trong Ly, Viet Bac Nguyen, Huong Dac Doan, Daniel Luis Soux and Myles
Alexander Vandrick were charged with various offences related to the kidnapping.
434:
The Court found that a record-keeping requirement would also increase accountability, but would not be necessary if there was a notice requirement. In an emergency situation, record-keeping may be impracticable.
447:, which allows wiretaps to prevent bodily harm, prevents the intercepted communications from being admitted as evidence, except in proceedings related to bodily harm. Section 184.4 has no similar limitations.
345:
327:
victim, where the victim stated he was being held for ransom, the police initiated an emergency wiretap under section 184.4. Approximately 24 hours later, they received judicial authorization for the wiretap.
292:
Generally, the police cannot intercept a person's private telecommunications (such as a wiretap), with certain exceptions, such as the consent of one of the parties to the communications in combination with
558:– The changes would limit the authority to use this provision to police officers (currently, it is available to the broader category of peace officers) and only to the offences listed in section 183 of the
314:
Either the person sending the communication or the person intended to receive the communication is the person who would perform the unlawful act in question, or is the victim or intended victim of the harm.
546:– Notification would require that persons whose private communications have been intercepted in situations of imminent harm be notified within 90 days (subject to any extensions granted by a judge).
224:
114:
389:
Although there is specified time-limit, the Court noted that as time goes on, there will be less justification for the argument that authorization cannot be obtained with reasonable diligence.
231:
121:
535:
Unlike its predecessor, the new bill, C-55, simply responds to the guidance from the
Supreme Court by adding the safeguards of "notification" and "reporting" to section 184.4 of the
604:
Despite this concern, the BCCLA’s proposed amendment was not accepted by
Conservative committee members and Bill C-55 has been reported back to the House of Commons unamended.
480:
challenge invasions of privacy and obtain meaningful remedies. As a result, the Court found there was a lack of proportionality, and could not be saved under section 1 of the
426:
The Court found that since reporting to
Parliament does not create active oversight of wiretaps generally, the lack of reporting does not make the provisions unconstitutional.
423:
be notified of each wiretap, so that
Parliament can keep track of the frequency wiretaps are made, and under what circumstances. Section 184.4 has no reporting requirement.
832:
817:
802:
462:
Since the provisions were found unconstitutional due to the lack of accountability measures, the Court went on to decide where the legislation could be justified under the
374:
The Court first noted that as a general proposition, unauthorized wiretaps in emergency situations could be constitutional, if the authorization was legislated correctly.
702:
386:
The Court also found that the terms used in section 184.4 were not overly broad or vague. The Court also provided a limited scope of who could be considered a "victim".
496:
Therefore, the Court declared the legislation unconstitutional, but stayed the effect of their ruling for 12 months to give time for
Parliament to enact a new version.
311:
The police officer has reasonable grounds that the interception is necessary to prevent an unlawful act that would cause serious harm to any person or property, and
308:
The police officer has reasonable grounds that due to the urgency of the situation, prior judicial authorization cannot be obtained with reasonable diligence,
594:
261:
508:, the Supreme Court of Canada found that a wiretap authority without a court authorization in situations of imminent harm could be justified under the
850:
932:
922:
765:
747:
879:
783:
265:
241:
54:
Her
Majesty The Queen v Yat Fung Albert Tse, Nhan Trong Ly, Viet Bac Nguyen, Huong Dac Doan, Daniel Luis Soux and Myles Alexander Vandrick
865:
937:
927:
167:
355:
257:
82:
249:
253:
245:
340:
At the trial, the trial judge found that section 184.4 was unconstitutional, as it violated section 8 of the
213:
in emergency situations. The Court found that the emergency wiretap provisions found in section 184.4 of the
899:
294:
273:
202:
175:
34:
215:
109:
268:. The unanimous decision of the Court was the first Supreme Court of Canada decision written by Justices
643:
686:
28:
907:
780:
669:
655:
582:
420:
575:
220:
163:
140:
876:
113:, which permits wiretaps in certain situations without prior judicial authorization, infringe
903:
781:
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO RESPOND TO SUPREME COURT DECISION IN R. V. TSE
566:
Bill C-55 is supported by the New Democratic Party (NDP) and by the Liberal Party of Canada.
707:
304:
does not require any prior judicial authorization. Instead, three requirements must be met:
269:
171:
883:
787:
732:
151:
877:
LEGISLATION RESPONDING TO SUPREME COURT DECISION IN R. v. TSE PASSES THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
354:
The trial judge's decision on the constitutionality of the legislation was upheld by the
159:
916:
516:
206:
60:
366:
The unanimous reasons of the Court were written by Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ.
244:
and the various defendants), the Court heard from the following interveners: the
351:. The defendants were found guilty, and were sentenced between 10 and 18 years.
155:
147:
623:
552:– Reporting would require annual reports on the use of imminent harm wiretaps.
324:
464:
703:"Canada's top court strikes down police powers to wiretap without warrants"
210:
104:
866:
BCCLA urges Parliament to put a 24-hour limit on warrantless wiretaps
383:
to emergency situations where there is serious and imminent harm.
358:, and was appealed by the Crown to Supreme Court of Canada.
230:, and cannot be justified as a reasonable limitation under
323:
After family members received phone calls from an alleged
186:
181:
131:
97:
89:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
21:
240:In addition to the two parties to the case (the
539:. Bill C-55 would make three specific changes:
851:Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
842:
840:
237:due to the lack of accountability measures.
127:, since there are no accountability measures.
8:
595:British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
262:British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
205:decision regarding the constitutionality of
757:
755:
439:Lack of limitations on use of interceptions
415:Lack of reporting requirement to Parliament
682:
680:
393:Interpretation in relation to section 188
733:CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
636:
510:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
419:Other wiretap provisions requires that
342:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
258:Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario)
227:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
117:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
18:
515:On February 11, 2013, the Honourable
7:
266:Canadian Civil Liberties Association
242:Attorney General of British Columbia
644:SCC Case Information - Docket 33751
701:Tonda MacCharles (13 April 2012).
608:Royal Assent and Coming Into Force
430:Lack of record-keeping requirement
81:Judgment against the Crown in the
14:
356:British Columbia Court of Appeal
120:, and cannot be justified under
83:British Columbia Court of Appeal
27:
589:Proposed amendment to Bill C-55
933:Section Eight Charter case law
1:
923:Supreme Court of Canada cases
690:, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 184.4.
673:, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 184.2.
190:Moldaver and Karakatsanis JJ
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
803:EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 213
544:Notification within 90 days
250:Attorney General of Ontario
43:Hearing: November 18, 2011
954:
744:HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA
659:, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 184.
468:test for section 1 of the
402:Lack of notice requirement
297:, or with a warrant. and
254:Attorney General of Quebec
246:Attorney General of Canada
938:Canadian privacy case law
928:2012 in Canadian case law
833:Official Report (at 1300)
818:Official Report (at 1230)
531:Changes made by Bill C-55
370:General constitutionality
136:
102:
26:
475:The second stage of the
45:Judgment: April 13, 2012
900:Supreme Court of Canada
646:Supreme Court of Canada
203:Supreme Court of Canada
176:Andromache Karakatsanis
35:Supreme Court of Canada
902:decision available at
729:CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
378:Scope of section 184.4
295:judicial authorization
110:Criminal Code (Canada)
777:Department of Justice
556:Restricting the usage
443:Section 184.1 of the
346:section 24(2) of the
300:Section 184.4 of the
285:Section 184.4 of the
847:Parliament of Canada
829:Parliament of Canada
814:Parliament of Canada
799:Parliament of Canada
762:Parliament of Canada
583:Francis Scarpaleggia
362:Reasons of the Court
187:Unanimous reasons by
504:In the decision of
201:, 2012 SCC 16 is a
882:2013-04-25 at the
786:2013-02-15 at the
221:search and seizure
164:Marshall Rothstein
141:Beverley McLachlin
107:provisions of the
455:Section 1 of the
232:section 1 of the
225:section 8 of the
194:
193:
122:section 1 of the
115:section 8 of the
93:Appeal dismissed.
945:
886:
874:
868:
859:
853:
844:
835:
826:
820:
811:
805:
796:
790:
774:
768:
759:
750:
741:
735:
726:
720:
719:
717:
715:
708:The Toronto Star
698:
692:
684:
675:
667:
661:
653:
647:
641:
576:Françoise Boivin
332:Judicial history
172:Michael Moldaver
145:Puisne Justices:
132:Court membership
31:
19:
953:
952:
948:
947:
946:
944:
943:
942:
913:
912:
895:
890:
889:
884:Wayback Machine
875:
871:
860:
856:
845:
838:
827:
823:
812:
808:
797:
793:
788:Wayback Machine
775:
771:
760:
753:
742:
738:
727:
723:
713:
711:
700:
699:
695:
685:
678:
668:
664:
654:
650:
642:
638:
633:
619:
610:
591:
572:
533:
502:
490:
460:
441:
432:
417:
404:
395:
380:
372:
364:
334:
321:
290:
282:
168:Thomas Cromwell
152:Marie Deschamps
143:
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
951:
949:
941:
940:
935:
930:
925:
915:
914:
911:
910:
894:
893:External links
891:
888:
887:
869:
854:
836:
821:
806:
791:
769:
751:
736:
721:
693:
676:
662:
648:
635:
634:
632:
629:
628:
627:
618:
615:
609:
606:
590:
587:
571:
568:
564:
563:
553:
550:Annual reports
547:
532:
529:
501:
498:
489:
486:
459:
453:
440:
437:
431:
428:
416:
413:
403:
400:
394:
391:
379:
376:
371:
368:
363:
360:
333:
330:
320:
317:
316:
315:
312:
309:
289:
283:
281:
278:
192:
191:
188:
184:
183:
179:
178:
160:Rosalie Abella
138:Chief Justice:
134:
133:
129:
128:
103:The emergency
100:
99:
95:
94:
91:
87:
86:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
950:
939:
936:
934:
931:
929:
926:
924:
921:
920:
918:
909:
905:
901:
898:Full text of
897:
896:
892:
885:
881:
878:
873:
870:
867:
863:
858:
855:
852:
848:
843:
841:
837:
834:
830:
825:
822:
819:
815:
810:
807:
804:
800:
795:
792:
789:
785:
782:
778:
773:
770:
767:
763:
758:
756:
752:
749:
745:
740:
737:
734:
730:
725:
722:
710:
709:
704:
697:
694:
691:
689:
688:Criminal Code
683:
681:
677:
674:
672:
671:Criminal Code
666:
663:
660:
658:
657:Criminal Code
652:
649:
645:
640:
637:
630:
626:
625:
621:
620:
616:
614:
607:
605:
602:
598:
596:
588:
586:
584:
579:
577:
569:
567:
561:
560:Criminal Code
557:
554:
551:
548:
545:
542:
541:
540:
538:
537:Criminal Code
530:
528:
524:
522:
518:
517:Rob Nicholson
513:
511:
507:
499:
497:
494:
487:
485:
483:
478:
473:
471:
467:
466:
458:
454:
452:
448:
446:
445:Criminal Code
438:
436:
429:
427:
424:
422:
414:
412:
408:
401:
399:
392:
390:
387:
384:
377:
375:
369:
367:
361:
359:
357:
352:
350:
349:
343:
338:
331:
329:
326:
318:
313:
310:
307:
306:
305:
303:
302:Criminal Code
298:
296:
288:
287:Criminal Code
284:
279:
277:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
238:
236:
235:
229:
228:
222:
219:infringe the
218:
217:
216:Criminal Code
212:
208:
204:
200:
199:
189:
185:
182:Reasons given
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
146:
142:
139:
135:
130:
126:
125:
119:
118:
112:
111:
106:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
78:Prior history
76:
72:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
872:
861:
857:
846:
828:
824:
813:
809:
798:
794:
776:
772:
761:
743:
739:
728:
724:
712:. Retrieved
706:
696:
687:
670:
665:
656:
651:
639:
622:
611:
603:
599:
592:
580:
573:
565:
559:
555:
549:
543:
536:
534:
525:
520:
514:
509:
505:
503:
495:
491:
481:
476:
474:
469:
463:
461:
456:
449:
444:
442:
433:
425:
418:
409:
405:
396:
388:
385:
381:
373:
365:
353:
347:
341:
339:
335:
322:
301:
299:
291:
286:
274:Karakatsanis
239:
233:
226:
214:
197:
196:
195:
144:
137:
123:
116:
108:
53:
33:
156:Morris Fish
148:Louis LeBel
65:2012 SCC 16
917:Categories
631:References
624:R v Duarte
421:Parliament
325:kidnapping
280:Background
264:, and the
223:rights in
70:Docket No.
766:Bill C-30
748:BILL C-55
593:When the
570:Critiques
500:Aftermath
61:Citations
880:Archived
784:Archived
714:15 April
617:See also
319:Incident
270:Moldaver
211:wiretaps
521:R v Tse
506:R v Tse
482:Charter
470:Charter
457:Charter
348:Charter
234:Charter
207:warrant
198:R v Tse
124:Charter
105:wiretap
98:Holding
22:R v Tse
908:CanLII
488:Remedy
398:long.
260:, the
256:, the
252:, the
248:, the
209:-less
90:Ruling
73:33751
904:LexUM
862:BCCLA
477:Oakes
465:Oakes
906:and
716:2012
581:Mr.
574:Ms.
272:and
919::
864:,
849:,
839:^
831:,
816:,
801:,
779:,
764:,
754:^
746:,
731:,
705:.
679:^
523:.
484:.
472:.
276:.
174:,
170:,
166:,
162:,
158:,
154:,
150:,
718:.
562:.
85:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
