Différends et enquêtes|28 mars 2013
Victory for Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Supreme Court Case on text messages
Torys acted as counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) as intervener with a team that included Wendy Matheson and Rebecca Wise.
On March 28, 2013, Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) as intervener, won a major victory in the Supreme Court case of R. v. Telus, released on March 28.
The issue in Telus was what level of privacy should be accorded to text messages. The case arose after police served a "general warrant" on Telus requiring Telus to search its text message database daily for 14 days and provide police with copies of all text messages sent or received by the two subjects of the warrant. Telus moved to quash the warrant, arguing that it amounted to an intercept of the messages and that the police should therefore have sought a wiretap authorization, rather than a general warrant. The court below declined to quash the warrant. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The CCLA intervened in the case before the Supreme Court to address the important privacy interests at stake. In its decision, the Supreme Court accepted the arguments made on behalf of the CCLA, overturning the lower court's decision and quashing the warrant. The majority held that an intercept authorization under Part VI, with its strong privacy protections, is required when the police seek prospective production of text messages from a telecommunications provider. The decision affirms that in the search and seizure context there is no difference -- in terms of privacy protection afforded to private communications -- between texting and a traditional phone conversation.
The Court's decision can be found on Lexum's website.
The issue in Telus was what level of privacy should be accorded to text messages. The case arose after police served a "general warrant" on Telus requiring Telus to search its text message database daily for 14 days and provide police with copies of all text messages sent or received by the two subjects of the warrant. Telus moved to quash the warrant, arguing that it amounted to an intercept of the messages and that the police should therefore have sought a wiretap authorization, rather than a general warrant. The court below declined to quash the warrant. That decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The CCLA intervened in the case before the Supreme Court to address the important privacy interests at stake. In its decision, the Supreme Court accepted the arguments made on behalf of the CCLA, overturning the lower court's decision and quashing the warrant. The majority held that an intercept authorization under Part VI, with its strong privacy protections, is required when the police seek prospective production of text messages from a telecommunications provider. The decision affirms that in the search and seizure context there is no difference -- in terms of privacy protection afforded to private communications -- between texting and a traditional phone conversation.
The Court's decision can be found on Lexum's website.