The Canadian Spy, Bail Reviews, and Preliminary Inquiries

Jeffrey Delisle, the naval intelligence officer charges both under the Security of Information Act and the Criminal Code, will have a preliminary hearing on those charges starting on October 10, 2012. For a full review of his charges, a discussion of other infamous Canadian spies, as well as a primer on the Official Secrets Act and the legislation now enacted to replace that Act, the Security of Information Act, read my previous posting on the issue Spy vs. Spy. For a discussion of Mr. Delisle’s bail hearing see my posting Blog Update: The Spy and the Pamphleteer.

This date seems rather late considering Delisle was denied bail and has been in custody since his arrest in mid-January, 2012. By the time Delisle has his preliminary hearing, he would have been in pre-trial custody, which is much harder time than serving a sentence, for nine months. Considering this, it would not be surprising if Mr. Delisle’s counsel will launch a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

Such a review is heard by a Superior Court Judge. In this instance as the matter is in Nova Scotia, a bail review would be before a Nova Scotia Supreme Court Justice. In such a bail review, the Judge considers any relevant evidence, both written and oral, the transcript of the previous bail hearing, any exhibits filled at the previous bail hearing, and such additional evidence as either the Crown or the defence may offer.

On a bail review, counsel may argue that the previous order denying bail was based on a legal/factual error. Such argument would be based on transcript evidence and legal argument. Or the defence might argue a material change in circumstance has occurred since the previous hearing. This argument would include affidavit evidence or even vive voce evidence, which would involve calling witnesses at the review hearings. When this occurs, the bail review becomes essentially a new bail hearing. The onus of proof on a bail review is on the party who brings the application; in this case it would be the defence. It is therefore the defence who must satisfy the reviewing Judge that judicial interim release is appropriate.

There is also a provision in the Criminal Code, under s.525 for an automatic bail review if an accused has been in custody, in Delisle’s case, for more than ninety days. Considering the length of time he has already been in custody, six months, one can assume such automatic reviews have occurred. Although, these reviews are automatic, in order to ensure an accused does not languish in jail unnecessarily and in order to preserve the presumption of innocence, defence counsel can waive or pass on the right to an automatic review. This would be done if the prospect of bail seems slim. However, in such an automatic review, the reviewing judge does consider the delay in the matter coming to trial and the reasons for the delay. The longer the accused sits in pre-trial custody, the more likely the accused will eventually be released. However, in those complicated cases, which require much effort to get ready for trial, the courts will tolerate longer delays.

In Delisle’s case, because of the severity of the allegations, a trial date was not set but a preliminary hearing date. Additionally, Delisle elected to be tried by judge and jury once the matter goes to trial. Such an election is typical as the defence can change that election to a Judge alone trial after the preliminary hearing. It is far simpler to elect down to a judge alone trial than it is to elect up to a judge and jury, hence the election is usually for judge and jury.

It is important to understand that a preliminary hearing is not a trial where guilt and innocence is at issue. Traditionally, the sole purpose of the preliminary hearing is to ensure there is enough evidence to put the accused to trial. It is another safeguard to ensure the accused is fairly tried. If there is insufficient evidence, the defence will ask for a discharge of the accused at the preliminary hearing. If this is granted, the charges are dismissed and the accused is released from custody and no longer is charged with a criminal offence. If there is sufficient evidence, the judge will order the accused to stand trial in the superior court.

A preliminary hearing is heard in the lower level or provincial court. In order for the judge to make a determination of sufficiency of evidence, the Crown, who has the burden to show why the charges should proceed, calls witnesses to give evidence. The defence then has a right to cross examine the witnesses, which brings us to the ulterior reason for a preliminary hearing: to act as a discovery of information on the case, which will assist in preparation for evidence and to “pin down” witnesses on their evidence. This “pinning down” or defining clearly under oath and the record a witness’s evidence is important for trial. If a witness later changes his evidence, the fact at on an earlier occasion, when the matters were more fresh in the witness’s mind, the witness gave different evidence, will go to the credibility or believability of the witness at trial. Also, should the witness abscond or disappear, the earlier evidence given under oath at the preliminary hearing may be read into evidence at trial.

Despite the importance of the preliminary hearing to the full answer and defence of an accused, there have been calls to abolish the practice both in Canada and in other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Australia. Some Caribbean Commonwealth countries, such as Trinidad and Tobago, have abolished the hearings. Indeed, in the UK, where the concept originated, as of April 2012, preliminary hearings or, as the English call them, committal hearings have been abolished. The changes are being phased in, with some jurisdictions still following the old system. Instead, the Crown is obliged to ensure full disclosure of the case is given to the accused in a timely fashion. Obviously, this safeguard cannot possibly take the place of a cross examination at a preliminary inquiry. In the United States, which does not follow the English common law tradition, under certain circumstances, there are preliminary hearings.

What will this mean for Mr. Delisle? In October, Mr. Delisle should be able to test the government’s case and determine the sufficiency of the evidence against him. The public however will not be privy to that information. Typically, the court on a preliminary hearing will order a ban on publication of the evidence heard, in order to ensure that no potential jurors are pre-disposed by the committal evidence. Additionally, the Crown may shut down the preliminary hearing at anytime during the course of it or even not hold the hearing at all, choosing to directly indict the accused to superior court. This tactic is helpful if the case is complicated to present or if the investigation is ongoing. There is, therefore, a possibility that Mr. Delisle will not get his “day in court” until trial. Until October, the story of the Canadian Spy will continue. 

Assisted Suicide Appeal By Canadian Government Announced

No surprise that the Federal government will be appealing the assisted suicide decision recently rendered by the British Columbia Supreme Court in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General). As discussed in my previous postings on the issue, the Federal government, through the Minister of Justice Rob Nicholson, had thirty days from the handing down of the BC decision to appeal to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The time deadline was today and true to form, the government squeezed within the time period by filing the Notice to Appeal today. The government will also seek a stay of the ruling of Madam Justice Lynn Smith, which permits Gloria Taylor, suffering from ALS, to seek an assisted suicide when she so chose to do so through a rarely used constitutional exemption.

In Rob Nicholson's statement announcing the appeal, he maintained that the laws surrounding assisted suicide "exist to protect all Canadians." This idea of safeguarding an individual's life, even if the individual wants to end that life, is very consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the Rodriguez case from 1993. Whether or not this idea of "government-knows-best" is still consistent with present Canadian values will no doubtedly be at issue when the Taylor et al case is ultimately heard before the Supreme Court of Canada. Again, considering the make-up of the present day SCC, particularly with the presence of Chief Justice McLachlin, who disagreed with the Rodriguez majority ruling, this rather outmoded idea of government as ultimate protector may be an idea of the past. Stay tuned to this blog for more on this issue.

In Defence of Civil Disobedience: Part Two

In my previous posting, I outlined the historical significance of civil disobedience, tracing the creation of the phrase from Thoreau, who turned an innocuous poll tax into a deeply personal articulation of one’s beliefs, to the present iteration of collective disobedience against government policy. Today’s posting will take these concepts a step further into the legal realm.

The definition of “civil disobedience’ as found in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, suggests the act is a “non-violent” form of group protest. This definition conjures up a vision of peaceful sign-bearing protesters, shouting slogans, and holding hands in solidarity before dispersing for a musical interlude and barbecue. This peaceful concept of civil disobedience no longer seems to fit the bill as today’s more complicated issues require a much higher shock quotient to get the attention of the media and then ultimately the government. Hand in hand with this more virulent form of disobedience is the more intransigent reaction by the government: as crowds shout “hell no, we wont go,” the government lawyers are busily drafting court applications for injunctive relief.

Injunctions, as I thoroughly discussed in my previous posting on the Occupy Movement, are a favoured response by the government as, if successful, results in a court imposed order for the disobedience to stop and then turns the protest into legally recognized unlawful conduct. This can have enormous repercussions as an injunction can not only effectively shut down any future protests, but can also provide legal precedent on the ultimate issue at stake: the fundamental freedoms protected under s. 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms involving s.2 (b) freedom of expression rights, s. 2(c) freedom of peaceful assembly, and s. 2(d) freedom of association. As discussed in previous postings, the Charter is not absolute and the Courts try to balance societal rights with the individual freedoms found under section 2. As a result, although the Courts may find a violation of s. 2 rights by the government seeking an injunction, where societal harm or violence is caused, the Courts tend to find such injunctions a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society under s.1.

The government may also respond to civil disobedience through the criminal justice system. Typically, such response is reserved for the clearest examples of law breaking such as the destructive effects of a rioting crowd. In those cases, the law is most severe, imposing harsh sentences on those who destroy property and harm others under the flimsy disguise of a "cause".

Criminal contempt charges may also be laid when injunctions are not obeyed. This scenario is subtler as it does not involve harmful action but involves inaction: a failure to obey a law, which has been declared valid by the courts. The justice system deals with this form of disobedience slightly differently. Here again Charter violations may not provide a valid defence, but may be taken into account as a mitigating factor on sentence.

To raise a valid defence on a criminal charge arising out of civil disobedience is a challenge as any moral or ethical arguments for committing the prohibited acts do not change the essence of the crime committed. The best way to explain this is through the Robin Hood scenario. Robin Hood and his Merry Men stole from the rich to give to the poor. When we hear this story we usually give Robin the “thumbs up” for fighting against tyranny and greed. We also cheer as he takes the gold from evil King John, knowing that the good King Richard will absolve Robin of any guilt. But, in terms of criminal law, a bandit is a bandit no matter how you slice it. Although Robin Hood may have a valid moral argument for his actions and therefore an excellent motive for breaking the law, the law is clear: the guilt act and the guilty mind are present and therefore Robin Hood is guilty of highway robbery. He may receive a suspended sentence from a sympathetic court but he is still a convicted felon.

There is, however, a possible defence available. In Perka v. the Queen, the Supreme Court of Canada, when considering the common law defence of necessity, suggested such a defence may be a valid defence to acts of civil disobedience. In the necessity defence both the prohibited act or actus reus and the fault requirement or mens rea is complete. Therefore, all essential elements of the crime have been fulfilled and the defence merely excuses the blameworthy conduct.

Essentially, the accused acknowledges the wrongfulness of the action but in the circumstances the accused should not be punished for the crime. Excuses are typically limited to emergency situations wherein the accused had no choice but to break the law. As our criminal law punishes only those who choose to act criminally, an excuse can exonerate an accused of a crime. In the necessity scenario, the accused must choose between two evils.

However, such exoneration comes with a price: the defence of necessity is only accepted in certain, very limited circumstances. There are three elements to the necessity defence. Firstly, the accused must be facing imminent peril or danger. Secondly, there must be no reasonable legal alternative but for the accused to break the law. Thirdly, the harm inflicted by committing the crime must be proportional to the harm, which would have been caused if the accused followed the law and not committed the crime. As a result, necessity is rarely advanced and even rarely accepted as a valid defence. When it is accepted, the Court views the behaviour as a form of moral involuntariness.

How does the necessity defence work in practice where there are acts of civil disobedience? The best case examples are not from usually staid Canada, but in the protest fuelled United States. In the 1969 case of United States v. Moylan, the appellants were charged with the destruction of government records, records they seized from a government office and burned with napalm in protest of the Vietnam War. Counsel for the defence, the “radical lawyer” and activist William Kunstler, argued that the jury should have been instructed that they “had the power to acquit even if appellants were clearly guilty of the charged offenses.” This “right’ was based in moral arguments as the appellants were protesting a war “outrageous to their individual standards of humanity.” Furthermore, the war itself was illegal and therefore citizens had an obligation, in the name of justice, to break the law in order to enforce the law.

The United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit Judge Sobeloff, took a page from the Robin Hood myth and found no matter how sincere the appellants were in their actions, and no matter how strong their moral arguments were, they still committed crimes for which they must be accountable. In upholding the law Justice Sobeloff remarked:

To encourage individuals to make their own determinations as to which laws they will obey and which they will permit themselves as a matter of conscience to disobey is to invite chaos. No legal system could long survive if it gave every individual the option of disregarding with impunity any law, which by his personal standard was judged morally untenable. Toleration of such conduct would not be democratic, as appellants claim, but inevitably anarchic.

The best known case of a jury being invited by defence to eschew the law and decide a case on their own moral conscious, was in R. v. Morgentaler, when Morris Manning, Q.C. invited the jury to acquit Dr. Morgentaler of violating the "bad" abortion law. The Supreme Court of Canada chastised Manning for his emotional appeal, finding that such an invitation would “undermine and place at risk” the jury system. In support of this position, Chief Justice Dickson referred to the British 1784 criminal libel case of R. v. Shipley and quoted Lord Mansfield as follows:

So the jury who usurp the judicature of law, though they happen to be right, are themselves wrong, because they are right by chance only, and have not taken the constitutional way of deciding the question. It is the duty of the Judge, in all cases of general justice, to tell the jury how to do right, though they have it in their power to do wrong, which is a matter entirely between God and their own consciences.

To be free is to live under a government by law . . . . Miserable is the condition of individuals, dangerous is the condition of the State, if there is no certain law, or, which is the same thing, no certain administration of law, to protect individuals, or to guard the State.  ...

In opposition to this, what is contended for? -- That the law shall be, in every particular cause, what any twelve men, who shall happen to be the jury, shall be inclined to think; liable to no review, and subject to no control, under all the prejudices of the popular cry of the day, and under all the bias of interest in this town, where thousands, more or less, are concerned in the publication of newspapers, paragraphs, and pamphlets. Under such an administration of law, no man could tell, no counsel could advise, whether a paper was or was not punishable.

Certainly, it is valid to be fearful of a capricious jury who are guided by their own prejudices and sensibilities but there is an attraction to the ability of a jury to “do the right thing” and acquit in circumstances where the law is unjust, not just unfavourable, but unjust. When I was a student at Osgoode Law School in 1983, Morris Manning came to the school and reenacted his Morgnetaler jury address, an address which did result in an acquittal for the doctor. It was a moving piece of advocacy, which did stir the moral conscious. In the end, I was questioning the moral and legal basis for a law, which could send Dr. Morgentaler to jail. Ultimately the court system did work for Dr. Morgentaler, due to our Charter, the best defence against tyranny and injustice.

What does all of this mean for the ongoing student protests in Quebec? It is unclear where the Quebec government will go. Certainly the new laws they have introduced to stop further protest has only fueled more acts of civil disobedience. As with the occupy movement, these acts have gone viral and the issue has become one of students’ rights and the moral obligation to speak out against seemingly “bad” laws. However, to speak out against laws is much different than acting out criminally. It will ultimately be up to the Courts to draw the line between the two.

Let’s Talk About: Property Rights & The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

The Alberta election is heating up and is soon to be decided as Albertans go to the polls on Monday, April 23, 2012. One of the many controversial issues raised by the Wildrose leader, Danielle Smith, is on property rights and the absence of such rights guaranteed in the Charter. Smith, on her Wildrose website, suggests the “fundamental role” of government is the “protection and preservation of property rights.” As part of her platform on this “fundamental” issue is the promise her government would “entrench property rights.” She would do this by implementing an Alberta Property Rights Preservation Act, entrenching “basic property rights in the Alberta Bill of Rights” and spearheading “a national initiative to add property rights to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” 

Really? Are we really to believe that this “pressing” issue of property rights should be shoulder to shoulder in our Charter along with our fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression, freedom of conscious, and equality rights. Should our preoccupation with individual, political, and democratic rights take a back seat to issues of ownership and possession? What will this mean for our criminal law and the ability of the government to reasonably search and seize property for a criminal investigation? Does the corporeal trump the spirit? Is property, which not everyone has the ability to own, require the special attention and protection of our most Supreme laws? Why should property rights, which were specifically and deliberately left out of the Charter, now be placed back in?

Not that we would ever see the unanimous agreement to do so that is required before the Charter could be amended. Do we need the kind of property rights litigation, which occurs in the United States, where property rights were specifically enshrined in their Constitution and viewed as sacred as life itself? And if we feel we do want this protection, are we prepared for the result. For a good discussion on the history of American Constitution property rights, read the SCC decision in Reference re ss. 193 and 195.1(1)(C) of the criminal code (Man.).

Danielle Smith may have taken a page from her namesake, Adam Smith’s, Wealth of Nations, with a call to protect life, liberty and property but fails to recognize the positive obligation protecting property would place on the government. Thus, we would need a robust and interventionist government, willing to step into the property rights fray. Entrenching property rights would mean not less government but more government, as the Courts would be busy reviewing the government’s ability to regulate and protect the national interest in the name of the economy. Take for instance the issue of natural resources and the role ownership of such resources would play under a property Charter rights scenario.

Canada does in fact have some experience with protection of property rights as section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, 1960, the statutory, quasi-constitutional precursor to the Charter, protects “the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.” While this still enacted statute can still be used to “protect” property rights, the legal interpretation of this right has not provided the protection the Wildrose maintains they can provide if elected. 

But would such entrenchment of property rights really “protect and preserve” an individual’s right to their property as touted by the Wildrose? It is instructive perhaps to look at the case law on property rights in the Bill of Rights. This passage of the Bill of Rights was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada rather recently in the 2003 Authorson case, in which disabled veterans attempted to require the federal government to pay past interest on pension funds despite legislation minimizing Crown liability. The end result of the decision, dismissing the veterans’ claim, was to uphold Parliament’s right to expropriate property without compensation.

Legally, an “entrenchment” of property rights does not in and of itself suggest an individual’s right to property would be absolutely guaranteed. Indeed, considering all of our rights under the Charter are not absolutely protected, any “new” Charter rights would be treated similarly. According to s. 1, all of the Charter rights are subject to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.  In addition, both Parliament and each provincial legislature, including Alberta, have the authority to enact legislation contrary to the rights guaranteed in the Charter through the Charter notwithstanding provision contained in s. 33.

Therefore, the Wildrose is promising, in a very heated election, something they cannot themselves guarantee. Undoubtedly these are the best promises to make: no one can take them to task for merely promising to try. Interestingly, the Authorson case was written by the then Alberta appointment to the SCC, Justice Major, who is now trying to sort out the MLA compensation debacle. Of course, the proponents of property rights would suggest it is the poor wording of the Bill of Rights, offering property protection in accordance with due process, which is the problem and which can be easily fixed.

But even if the Charter was amended and property rights were absolutely protected as desired by the Wildrose, the question still remains whether or not protecting property rights is in the best interests of Canadians. If we say “yes” to property rights, then we must be prepared for all kinds of litigation overrunning our justice system such as: litigation on the right of the government to tax individuals; litigation on the government’s right to make decisions on natural resources; litigation on intellectual property rights including copyright and access to information; and litigation regarding criminal law and search warrants as discussed in the SCC case of Quebec (Attorney General) v. Laroche. We could even see spill-over litigation in the area of economic rights, which traditionally has been unprotected by the Charter as discussed in the SCC Gosselin case, which could put Canada’s economic health at risk by promoting the financial sovereignty of the individual at the expense of a strong economy and healthy society.

Thus, in the end, we must decide if property rights are worth protecting in our country knowing the possible legal pitfalls, which may ensue. Let’s ensure the next thirty years of Charter litigation promotes our fundamental freedoms as individuals of choice and free will, entitled to respect and dignity, instead of a document weighed down by possessory rights and self-interest.

Are You Listening to This? The Constitutionality of Interceptions of Private Communications In Exceptional Circumstances

Justice Moldaver and Justice Karakatsanis, writing for an unanimous court in the Tse case and their first decision as Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, found s.184.4 of the Criminal Code, which governs investigatory interceptions of private communications in “exceptional” circumstances, lacking in the constitutionally required safeguards required for such interceptions. According to the Code, “exceptional” circumstances refers to the situation where a peace officer is facing an “urgent” situation whereby he or she is reasonably unable to follow the normal procedures outlined in the Code for such interceptions.

What would these normal procedures require? First, we must step back from the section and pause to consider the context. Section 184.4 is in Part VI (6) of the Criminal Code relating to “invasion of privacy,” or when a peace officer wants to investigate a criminal matter by using an investigative technique involving the surreptitious interception of private communications. In other, more colloquial terms, the police want to “spy” or “eavesdrop” on a targeted individual, whom the police believe on reasonable grounds to be committing or planning to commit a crime. As we know from television and movies, spying is a very high tech activity requiring the most cutting edge devices such as wiretaps accessed by loads of smart looking mechanical equipment found in plain white cube vans with cool looking techies wearing enormous noise-cancelling headphones. Also present is the ubiquitous computer laptop, as today’s savvy cop needs to use the best in order to combat the even technologically savvier criminal.

As great as these techniques look on the big screen, they do not translate well in the constitutional setting; a context, which takes individual rights seriously, and violations of such rights even more seriously. In our Charter, through sections 7 and 8, the state is required to respect the dignity, autonomy, and integrity of the individual as a defining element of individual freedom. However, with this state obligation, as Pierre Trudeau so eloquently stated “there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation,” comes the competing need to protect society from harm through state-sponsored police investigation and protection. It is the judiciary’s role to determine the appropriate balance between these competing rights through a generous and flexible interpretation of the Charter.

As a result, the starting point in the Criminal Code for invasion of privacy is to create an offence where private communication is intercepted by any means. Private communications are any oral, telephone, or radio-based communication made in the context of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, the originator of the communication intended the communication to be made to another person, with an expectation no one else other than the intended receiver would hear it. Any non-consensual interceptions to such private communication are therefore unlawful and contrary to section 184 of the Criminal Code.

There are two exceptions to the rule, wherein the interception is unlawful. One scenario involves the consent to intercept by either the originator or the receiver of the communication. The other scenario, which is of interest in the Tse case, contemplates a lawful interception where the investigators obtained prior judicial authorization to intercept the communications in accordance with the procedure as set out in the Criminal Code. The application to a Judge for such an authorization is described in section 185 of the Criminal Code.

The application procedure is rigorous: it must be made in writing, it must be made before a superior court judge or a designated judge, it must be signed by the provincial Attorney General or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or a duly authorized agent specially designated in writing, and must be accompanied by a sworn document (affidavit) of the investigating officer. 

In turn, this affidavit, based on the information and belief of the investigator, must include the following information: the facts justifying the authorization should be given; the particulars of the alleged crime; the type of communication to be intercepted; the names, addresses, and occupations, if known, of all the persons intended to be intercepted together with the reasonable grounds to believe such interception may assist the investigation; a description of the place, if known, where the communication is to be intercepted; general description of how the communication will be intercepted; the number of times, if any, such an application for interception has previously been made under the section and the specific details of that prior application; the length of time for which the interception is required; and why other investigative techniques would not likely succeed or why it would be impractical to use other techniques due to the urgency of the situation or if other techniques were tried and failed, what those other investigative techniques were and why they failed to work.

Even if the above procedure is followed to the letter and even if the peace officer has fulfilled all of these pre-requisites, the application Judge, under section 186, must not issue an authorization unless her or she is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the authorization to intercept and that other investigative techniques have been tried and failed, or are unlikely to succeed, or urgency requires this technique.

The steps needed and the information required before an authorization is issued emphasizes the status quo of non-interception and provides a constitutionally permissible exception to the general rule.

Now that we have stepped back from the section at issue in the Tse decision to look at the broader context, we can appreciate the constitutional deficiencies found in s.184.4. First, as earlier discussed, s. 184.4 is an exception to the exception found in s. 185. Section 184.4 permits a peace officer to intercept a private communication in prescribed exigent circumstances where: the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that an authorization cannot reasonably be obtained and the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds the interception is “immediately necessary” to prevent an “unlawful act” that would cause “serious harm” to person or property and where either the originator of the communication or the receiver of the communication will cause the harm or is the intended victim of the harm. That’s it. There is no requirement for prior judicial authorization. It is the investigator, not an unbiased judicial officer, who makes the determination of the urgency of the situation.

All the safeguards found in sections 185 and 186 seem to disappear as “urgency” trumps “privacy” in s. 184.4.  Not so according to Justices Moldaver and Karakatsanis. In their view, certain aspects of the section pass “constitutional muster” as it provides an appropriately flexible authorization approach in dire or emergency circumstances. However, this appropriate response can only be found by stepping back once again from the section and looking to s.188.  This section contemplates a “stop-gap” authorization, which is issued in urgent situations where an interception is required before there is an opportunity to apply for an authorization under s.185. This “follow-up” authorization must be sought for the s.184.4 situation as soon as is practicable to minimize the time in which a non-authorized interception is at play, thereby maintaining the rigours of the interception exception.

But wait, did the SCC not find s.184.4 invalid and contrary to the Charter? Yes, but in a very limited way, which protects the integrity of the section and signals to the legal community that crime fighting is back on the Agenda with the Charter’s full approval. The constitutional concern with the section is not the lack of judicial approval for an interception, as that judicial-less state would last only for a short time, but it is the lack of notice, which comes after the interception is used, to the intended targets that causes constitutional concern. No notice to those involved means a lack of oversight of the use of police powers. No notice means a lack of disclosure, which in turn means no ability to take the matter before a Judge to determine the appropriateness of the extreme police actions. It is this failure, which the Harper Government has twelve months to rectify. This is an easy fix with the SCC giving explicit instructions on how to comply.

This telling decision, written by new appointments, gives us some insight into the future. The Charter has recently celebrated its 30^th anniversary without much fanfare. This similarly low-key decision reiterates the now familiar Charter values of privacy and oversight but at the same time reinforces the State’s interest to combat crime. The Tse decision appears to provide an interpretation that presumes constitutionality instead of requiring proof of it. It seems to prefer self-referential statutory interpretation as opposed to the trail-blazing early Charter years when Chief Justice Dickson and Madame Justice Wilson wrote sometimes blistering commentaries on the role of the State in protecting Charter rights. Whether or not this is a trend will be seen in the next SCC Charter decision.