Canadian Law Case Study

Words: 2006
Pages: 9

Biology and law are not altogether different. After all, at the heart of both lies evolution. Canadian law is very different from what it used to be. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a part of the Constitution Act, enacted in 1982, replaced the Bill of Rights of 1960. The change did not end there. The Charter is indefinite; therefore, the judiciary interprets the Charter and considers rights protection. Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” (“Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982”). This stipulates that government officials (namely the police) need to have reasonable and probable grounds before searching or seizing property. Section …show more content…
The appellant, TELUS Communications Co., allows subscribers to recover lost messages by keeping a backup of all messages sent over its wireless network. Police obtained a general warrant and a related assistance order under ss. 487.01 and 487.02 of the Criminal Code. They required TELUS to provide them with records of communication between two subscribers over a two-week period. In response, TELUS applied to quash the general warrant claiming that the release of private conversations requires authorization under the wiretap provisions in Part VI of the …show more content…
The SCC decided that text messages are protected with the same privacy as voice conversations. Consequently, the appeal should be allowed and the general warrant and related assistance order should be quashed. The ratio identifies that Part VI of the Criminal Code restricts the ability of police to obtain and disclose private conversations. In contrast, a general warrant would permit a peace officer to use any device or investigative technique to constitute a reasonable search. Justices Abella, LeBel, and Fish reasoned that text messaging is only different from voice conversations in its transmission. Thus, text messages must fall under the protection of Part VI of the Criminal Code. Technological advances must not determine the scope of protection provided to private conversations. McLachlin C.J. and Cromwell J. were in dissent stating that Telus intercepted the messages and the general warrant is authorizes retrieval of the information regardless of whether it is a private conversation ("R. v. TELUS Communications Co., [2013] 2 SCR 3, 2013 SCC 16