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
(00:02:48) Held (Karakatsanis, Martin and Moreau JJ. dissenting)
(00:02:54) Per Wagner C.J. and Kasirer, Jamal and O’Bonsawin JJ.
(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
(00:42:52) 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
