To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Search and seizure

(00:00:39) Summary

(00:02:48) Held (Karakatsanis, Martin and Moreau JJ. dissenting)

(00:02:54) Per Wagner C.J. and Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ.

(00:13:24) Per Rowe J.

(00:15:44) Per Côté J.

(00:23:28) Per Karakatsanis, Martin and Moreau JJ. (dissenting)

(00:33:20) Reasons for Judgment: Jamal J. (Wagner C.J. and Kasirer and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring)

(00:33:28) I. Introduction – 1

(00:38:56) II. Facts – 9

(00:42:52) III. Judicial History – 17

(00:42:55) A. Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Voir Dire Ruling – 17

(00:47:30) B. Court of Appeal for Ontario – 26

(00:50:15) IV. Issues – 32

(00:50:58) V. Analysis – 33

(00:51:00) A. Did Mr. Campbell Have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in His Text Message Conversation? – 33

(00:52:18) (1) Legal Principles – 36

(00:55:00) (2) Application – 40

(01:16:00) (3) Conclusion – 79

(01:16:25) B. Was the Search Unreasonable? – 80

(01:18:07) (1) The Search Was Not an Interception Under Part VI of the Criminal Code – 84

(01:28:33) (2) The Search Was Not Incident to a Lawful Arrest – 101

(01:32:16) (3) The Search Was Justified by “Exigent Circumstances” That Made It “Impracticable” To Obtain a Warrant – 109

(01:53:06) (4) This Court Should Decline To Entertain Mr. Campbell’s New Argument That Section 11(7) of the CDSA Does Not Apply to the Search of a Text Message Conversation – 142

(01:55:08) C. It Is Not Necessary To Address Section 24(2) of the Charter – 145

(01:55:25) VI. Disposition – 146

(01:55:29) Concurring Reasons: Rowe J.

(01:55:54) I. Paterson Is the Governing Case on “Exigent Circumstances” – 148

(02:02:04) II. There Was “Imminent” Risk of Harm to Public Safety – 159

(02:05:02) III. Section 24(2) Analysis – 166

(02:06:13) Concurring Reasons: Côté J.

(02:06:17) I. Introduction – 168

(02:09:10) II. Analysis – 173

(02:09:12) A. Searches for the Purposes of Section 8 – 173

(02:11:52) B. Electronic Communications and Section 8 – 177

(02:17:24) C. Application – 184

(02:20:28) (1) Undercover Police Investigations – 190

(02:26:16) (2) Intrusiveness of Police Conduct – 197

(02:38:58) (3) Control and Ownership – 210

(02:46:31) (4) Conclusion on Reasonable Expectation of Privacy – 218

(02:47:26) (5) Comments on Interception, Exigency, and Section 24(2) of the Charter – 219

(02:56:00) III. Conclusion – 235

(02:57:26) Joint Dissenting Reasons: Martin and Moreau JJ. (Karakatsanis J. concurring)

(02:57:34) I. Overview – 238

(03:03:09) II. Background – 247

(03:09:52) III. Analysis – 257

(03:09:54) A. Mr. Campbell Had a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in the Electronic Communications – 257

(03:13:51) B. This Was a Warrantless Search – 263

(03:24:36) C. The Investigative Technique Was Not a Search Incident to Arrest – 279

(03:25:54) D. The Actions Taken by the Police Were Not Justified by the Exigent Circumstances Doctrine – 281

(03:27:25) (1) Exigent Circumstances Involves the Application of a Legal Standard to the Facts of the Case – 284

(03:29:01) (2) The Origins of the Exigent Circumstances Doctrine – 286

(03:33:04) (3) The Evolution of Exigent Circumstances Post-Charter – 293

(03:50:02) (4) The Warrantless Investigative Technique in This Case Was Not Justified by the Exigent Circumstances Doctrine – 319

(04:02:53) E. The Evidence Should Be Excluded Under Section 24(2) of the Charter – 335

(04:04:35) (1) The Seriousness of the Charter-Infringing State Conduct – 338

(04:10:16) (2) The Impact of the Breach on the Accused’s Charter-Protected Interests – 347

(04:12:38) (3) Society’s Interest in the Adjudication of the Case on Its Merits – 351

(04:14:46) (4) Balancing the Factors – 355

(04:16:42) IV. Disposition – 358