Toronto Criminal Lawyers Blog

Though members of the public often interpret the word “wiretap” is referring only to listening devices used to intercept telephone calls, criminal defence lawyers and other legal practitioners use the word “wiretap” to refer to any concealed listening or recording device used to intercept private communications. Police use wiretaps to monitor private communications in hopes of obtaining evidence as part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

It is both illegal and unconstitutional for the police to intercept private communications using a wiretap without first obtaining a wiretap warrant. The police can only act in so far as their conduct is empowered by law. There is no law which allows the police to set up a wiretap without prior judicial authorization in the form of a warrant. Thus, any warrantless wiretap is illegal. Moreover, section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every person has a right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. “Search” is defined very widely to include a wiretap. The Supreme Court has ruled that an illegal search is automatically considered unreasonable under section 8. When the police infringe Charter rights, the court has the power to grant the individual infringed upon a remedy. The primary remedy for a breach of section 8 is exclusion of evidence. This means that if the police obtain evidence against an individual using a warrantless wiretap, that individual’s criminal defence lawyer will argue that the wiretap violated the individual’s constitutional rights and that any evidence obtained through the wiretap should be ruled inadmissible at the individual’s trial.

Sections 186 and following of the Criminal Code of Canada govern the procedure for requesting, granting and executing a wiretap. Section 186 of the Code allows a Judge in the Superior Court of Justice to grant a wiretap warrant (unlike almost all other warrants which may be granted by a Justice of the Peace or a Judge in the Ontario Court of Justice).

The police must request a wiretap warrant before using any type of technology that intercepts private communications. Generally speaking this includes: a phone tap, a room probe (“bug”), and a body pack (“wearing a wire”).  However, this may also include video surveillance that also records sound. It is important to note that in private communications between two civilians, any conversation can be monitored or recorded with the consent of one of the parties. For this reason it is legal for an individual to tape all of his or her private telephone calls. However, it is not legal for the police to record or monitor private communications even with the permission of one of the parties involved, usually an undercover officer or confidential informant . Section 184 of the Criminal Code makes it clear that the police cannot rely on the consent to collect evidence using a body pack. Rather, a wiretap warrant must be obtained before the police may legally use a body pack. Thus, while a private individuals is free to record their communications with others, the police may not rely on the consent of one member of a conversation to legally record that conversation; they must obtain a wiretap warrant.

The method of applying for a wiretap warrant differs from the method of applying for every other type of warrants. While most other warrants require that the police swear a document called an information in front of a justice of the peace or judge in the Ontario Court of Justice, to apply for a wiretap warrant the police must prepare a special affidavit request. The affidavit must be written by a senior officer and a representative of the Crown Attorney’s office must approve and sign the request. Wiretaps are the only investigative technique that must be requested jointly by the Police and the Crown. Once the affidavit is prepared an officer must swear that its contents are true, under oath, before a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. The judge will then determine whether or not to grant the request. This is done ex parte, which means that it is done without the knowledge of the person to be tapped. This makes sense as notification to the suspect would undermine the very purpose of the investigation; however, as a result the validity of the application is determined without any opportunity for objection by a criminal defence lawyer.

Section 186 sets out criteria that the judge must consider when deciding whether or not to grant a wiretap warrant. The criteria to obtain a warrant under s. 186 are (i) reasonable and probable grounds and (ii) investigative necessity. Thus, first the police must prove that they have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the wiretap will reveal evidence to further a specific on-going investigation. The police must demonstrate in the affidavit that they have reason to suspect that the individual to be tapped is involved in a specific type of criminal activity and that the tap will reveal a particular type of evidence. Second, the police must show in the affidavit that there is no other investigative technique by which they could obtain the evidence they are seeking. This means that by the time the police request a wiretap affidavit they have usually exhausted other means of collecting evidence such as an ordinary home search, a covert search, a confidential informant, and police surveillance. The wiretap affidavit must explain why these methods failed where the wiretap can succeed.

If the judge chooses to grant the warrant, the warrant will last sixty days and may be renewed at the end of that period. It is not unusual for a tap to continue for over a year through the use of multiple successive renewals. The wiretap warrant is very expansive and once granted it bestows the police with a number of powers. For example, generally speaking, the warrant will allow the police to use any form of technology – phone tap, room probe, or body pack – to further their investigation at their discretion. Moreover, most wiretap warrants will authorize the police to enter the suspect’s home without his or her knowledge in order to place a room probe.

Every warrant contains an identification clause which specifies which persons and which places may be monitored pursuant to the warrant. The identification clause will generally name: specific persons, specific places, unidentified persons, and unidentified places. The unidentified person’s clause allows the police to monitor conversations between the suspect and individuals who are not known to the police and who may, or may not, be involved in criminal activity with the suspect. The unidentified places clause is also often known as the “resorts to” clause. This allows the police to tap locations that the accused frequents where he or she may use the phone. These places need not be identified in the original affidavit; thus, once the police receive information suggesting that the suspect may engage in private communications in a new untapped location, they may tap that location. This could include, among other locations, the home of the suspect’s friends and family, a telephone booth near the suspect’s home, a hotel room the suspect purchases, and the suspect’s office and office phone. The only limitation to the power to add individuals and locations to the wiretap unidentified at the time of the affidavit is the rule that the warrant cannot authorize the police to tap an unidentified person at an unidentified location. Thus, if the police are tapping Jones and they intercept communications between Jones and Person X which are of interest, they cannot obtain then obtain the phone number from which person X is calling and tap that phone without obtaining a separate warrant for X.

A wiretap may be shown to be illegal and therefore unconstitutional if the warrant which authorized the tap is somehow deficient. Before the Charter, wiretap affidavits were automatically sealed. This created a huge problem from criminal defence lawyers; the only way to have the court unseal the warrant was to show that the officer lied to the court in the affidavit, but it was nearly impossible to argue that the officer lied in the affidavit without having access to the information in the affidavit! This changed in R. v. Dersch, where the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the defendant was constitutionally entitled to a copy of the affidavit. However, around this time, the government also revised section 189 of the Criminal Code which dealt with the exclusion of evidence collected pursuant to a wiretap in the event that the wiretap warrant was found by the court to be illegal. In the old section 189, the Crown had the burden of proving to the court, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the wiretap warrant was legal. If the criminal defence lawyer could point to any instance of illegality (officer lied, warrant was not specific enough, the proper procedure was not followed, etc.), any evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant would be automatically inadmissible. Now, any application to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap must follow the general procedure for excluding evidence under the Charter. This means that the individual raising the issue, the criminal defence lawyer, bears the burden of proving that the warrant violates section 8 of the Charter. In addition, a breach of section 8 no longer leads to automatic exclusion of evidence, so, if the criminal defence lawyer is successful in proving a breach, he or she must subsequently prove that the breach is so significant to warrant exclusion under the Charter. The new procedure makes it much more difficult for criminal defence lawyers to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to an illegal wiretap warrant.

In practice, wiretap warrants are easy to get and quite common in Canada. Canadian police tap more per capita than their counterparts in the United States. Moreover, the wiretap powers in Canada are much more expansive than those granted to police in the United States. In the US, there is a statutory obligation on police in the to minimize the interception of innocent calls. Thus, in the USA all wiretaps are monitored by a human being; he or she is obliged to turn off the tape recorder when the person is speaking to an individual about matters irrelevant to the police. This means that in the US, police are obliged to stop listening when the suspect is speaking to about personal matters unrelated to crime. In Canada there is no such obligation. Usually, the police simply record everything that is said on the tap and review it later to look for evidence. This is problematic for two reasons. Firstly, it means that it is much easier for Canadian police to execute a wiretap. Since the man-power required is negligible (someone simply sets up the tap and everything else happens mechanically) the police do not need to expend a lot of resources to set up a tap. In the US, the monitoring requirement necessitates the use of a lot of officer time and police resources to monitor the tap, providing a disincentive to tap in situations where a tap is not absolutely necessary. Without this disincentive, Canadian police are much more likely to use wiretaps.  Secondly, continuous recording is incredibly invasive. In Canada, if your phone is tapped, the police are listening to everything you say: conversations with your mother, conversations with your significant other, conversations with your doctor or psychiatrist, etc. These conversations are taped and stored at the police station in a file with your name on it. Such a significant invasion of privacy should be used sparingly in our system. Unfortunately, wiretaps have become accepted frequent practice in Canada. Criminal defence lawyers continue to fight against the proliferation of wiretaps using every legal avenue available to limit their use and protect the privacy rights of individual Canadians.

World Cup Soccer has hit television screens across the country.  The highly anticipated event causes adrenaline rushes in fans across the globe. Soccer fans should remember that the way they choose to express their jubilation at winning and upset at losing can have criminal law implications. During the World Cup it is common to see people hanging off of cars, waving flags, honking horns, dancing in the streets in an intoxicated state, and, generally, creating a lot of noise. Sometimes the dynamic of a crowd can cause people to forget that the criminal law still applies no matter how many individuals choose the same form of expression. The reality is that some of the gregarious World Cup behavior can attract criminal charges. According to the Canadian Criminal Code, causing a disturbance is a criminal offence. Section 175(1)(a) provides:

175. (1) Everyone who, not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,

(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,

(ii) by being drunk, or

(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

This section of the Criminal Code creates a summary conviction offence.  The matter will be heard before a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice. The accused does not have the option of having a trial by judge and jury.

The word “disturbance” can be given a variety of differing definitions. At one end of the spectrum, “disturbance” means a disruption in the form of an annoyance or irritation. At the more serious end of the spectrum, the word may denote an actual physical disruption which could include violence. In the eyes of the law, not every event that ‘disturbs’ people will constitute an act which “causes a disturbance’. For example, smoking a cigarette or having an inappropriate conversation may disturb some people. However, these acts do not constitute conduct which can “cause a disturbance” according to the criminal law.

The phrase “cause a disturbance” has been definitively interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v. Lohnes, [1992] S.C.J.No. 6. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that for purposes of the criminal law, a “disturbance” must have a secondary impact- i.e. A manifested interference with the ordinary state of affairs. The “disturbance” contemplated by s.175(1)(a) is something more than a mere emotional upset or annoyance.  The offensive conduct must cause an externally manifested disturbance of the public peace. For World Cup fans to run afoul of the criminal law, the celebration of a victory or the anger at defeat must cause an individual to express himself in some way that creates a disturbance of the public peace. The offence has two essential components:

1) The commission of one of the enumerated acts (fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language, being drunk, impeding or molesting other persons); and,

2) causing a disturbance in or near a public place.

Whether or not the offending conduct has “caused a disturbance”, is a question of fact that will be determined by the court. The Court will consider the degree and intensity of the activity complained of and the degree and nature of the ‘peace’ that can be expected in the particular location at the particular time. The contextual circumstances of the behaviour is a very important consideration.  This means that to a certain extent the bar of appropriate(legal) behaviour may vary depending on the context. The same sentiment which may be expressed legally on College Street after Brazil, Portugal or Italy has scored a goal, may be illegal in a quiet suburb.  Yelling, screaming and swearing in Little Italy, when the Italian soccer team scores a winning goal, is not likely to cause a disturbance. The nature and degree of peace on College Street during the celebration of an Italian win is such that honking your horn and yelling does not cause a disturbance. Loud celebrations during World Cup season on College in the afternoon are markedly different from the same type of celebrations at 4.a.m. in a residential area where everyone is sleeping. The latter is more likely to be viewed by the Courts as the type of behavior that can cause a disturbance. Whether or not the behavior complained of actually constitutes the offence of ‘causing a disturbance’ is dependent on the consequences which arise from the behavior.

When you are celebrating those winning goals it is important to be aware of your surroundings. Living in a multi-cultural city like Toronto creates an intense situation during the World Cup. It is important to be mindful of the variety of cultures and backgrounds present in your environment. Yelling screaming and swearing in celebration with fellow supporters is different from yelling, screaming and swearing at the opposition. Shouting abusive language by itself will not likely create criminal liability. However, even in Little Italy, there is a limit to the type of celebratory behaviour which is tolerated. Starting a fight or a riot in the street is more serious and is likely to give rise to an offence under this section of the Code. The use of insulting or obscene language may initiate a “disturbance”. It is the foreseeable impact of the act which matters. The use of insulting and obscene language is not uncommon during the World Cup. Insulting another person in the street in a loud voice, and thereby attracting a crowd, may have criminal repercussions. When the use of insults or obscene language cause disorder or agitation and interfere with the normal use of the public area, a “disturbance” has been caused, and the perpetrators may be charged.

In order to secure a conviction on a charge of causing a disturbance the prosecution must show that the resulting disturbance was reasonably foreseeable in the particular circumstances. The person who caused the disturbance must have been able to foresee that such a reaction would result from his/her behavior. It will be up to a court to determine whether or not the perpetrator could have reasonably foreseen the outcome. However, it is important to remember that the Courts assessment of foreseeability is contextual. Therefore, the heightened state of emotions during the World Cup, and the increased parameters of civilized debate, are factors that the Court will ordinarily take into consideration. The Court will determine whether or not it would be reasonable for a person to foresee the “disturbance” quality of their actions. As stated, the same behaviour which may be illegal in the sleeping suburbs may be perfectly legal during a World Cup celebration. Context is everything.

Please don’t get the impression that during the World Cup there are no limits on what a person is legally permitted to do so long as they are celebrating or expressing their disappointment. Although more extreme behaviour may be tolerated, there is a point where outrageous behaviour will give rise to criminal consequences.

So, enjoy the World Cup and celebrate responsibly.  If you have been charged with “causing a disturbance” contact Kostman and Pyzer, Barristers for the best defence.

In the controversy surrounding Tiger Wood’s recent driving accident, it has been rumored that Mr. Wood’s blood tests from the hospital revealed that he had consumed alcohol, prescription drugs and sleeping pills before his now-infamous car crash. However, because the police did not request a breathalyzer at the scene of the accident, the media speculates that the blood samples taken from Tiger at the hospital will not be admissible against him in a court of law, should he be charged with an offence arising out of the accident.

If the same thing were to happen in Toronto, would the blood samples be admissible against Tiger Woods assuming he was charged with impaired driving? According to Canadian law, the blood samples obtained from Tiger at the hospital would be admissible in a Canadian court if and only if certain preconditions are met.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every individual has the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The testing of an individual’s breath, urine, or blood constitutes “search or seizure” under the law. In order for the police to obtain the sample without violating section 8 of the Charter, they must establish that the search/seizure is reasonable under the law and obtain a search warrant.

The police would have to obtain a search warrant in order to lawfully obtain the samples. A search warrant must be obtained from a judge. A judge will grant a search warrant if he or she finds that, based on the information contained in an application known as a “sworn information”, the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual was impaired at the time of the accident. Thus, one of officers investigating the Woods collision would have to file a “sworn information” stating that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that Tiger Woods was impaired at the time of the accident. The officer would also have to include a description of the evidence on which he or she formed that belief. The information cannot be based on the results of the blood, urine or breath test. It would be unfair if the police could use the results of the test in order to obtain permission to obtain those results. Thus, the officer must provide independent grounds on which he or she suspects that alcohol or a drug was involved in the collision. For example, if the officer or any witness smelled alcohol on Mr. Wood’s breath, if the hospital or ambulance staff reported smelling alcohol on Mr. Woods, if empty alcohol containers were found in Mr. Wood’s car, if witnesses described Mr. Wood’s behaviour as indicative of intoxication, etc., these factors would provide evidence to support a search warrant request. The judge would then determine whether the sworn information contained sufficient reliable evidence to issue a warrant.

Even if the officer obtains a warrant, the bodily samples taken from the accused will be inadmissible under s. 8 of the Charter if the defence can prove that they were taken without the accused’s consent, prior to the issuing of the warrant, for no purpose other than evidence collecting. If the samples were taken for legitimate health reasons, the police can obtain them after-the-fact pursuant to a warrant without breaching the Charter. However, the police cannot ask the doctor to take the samples and then go get a warrant. This would constitute a breach of the accused’s Charter rights. In the recent case of R. v. Grant the Supreme Court of Canada explicitly stated that “forcible taking of blood samples” will almost always breach the Charter. If the police were to have a nurse or doctor take the samples from the accused for police purposes, this would likely constitute a forcible taking (as the accused is tricked into giving the sample) and the sample would not be admissible at trial. However, if the samples are taken for legitimate health reasons, there is no reason that they would not be admissible after the fact, so long as the officer can persuade a judge that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused was impaired, and obtain a search warrant.

Once the Crown has established that the taking of the samples did not breach section 8 of the Charter, the Crown must prove that the samples are a true representation of Tiger’s Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) at the time of the accident. To do this, they must establish timing and continuity of the samples.

Under normal circumstances, the Crown benefits from a presumption that the BAC measured in the samples corresponds to the accused individual’s BAC at the time of the offence. In order to benefit from this presumption, the Crown must prove a number of things. For example, two samples must be taken, they must be taken within two hours of the offence, they must be taken “as soon as practicable”, there must not be any unreasonable time delay between the samples, the samples must have been taken by a qualified medical practitioner or qualified technician under the supervision of a doctor, and the samples must be placed directly in approved containers. A number of these conditions may have been lacking in the Woods case. For example, there may have been unreasonable delay between the accident and the taking of the samples, they may not have been taken within the two-hour window, and they may not have been secured directly into an approved container. For this reason, it is unlikely that the Crown will benefit from the presumption. Therefore, the Crown will have to prove that Mr. Wood’s BAC at the time the samples were taken was the same as Mr. Wood’s BAC at the time of the offence. For example, Tiger Wood’s defence lawyer could argue that Mr. Woods consumed the impairing substances right before driving, and that there was not enough time between consumption and driving for the effects of the substances to set in. The Crown will have the burden of disproving this argument.

Proving continuity means proving that the particular bodily samples being entered into evidence did, in fact, come from Mr. Wood’s body and that they have not been tampered with. Under usual circumstances, continuity is presumed because the samples are taken in the police station and immediately sealed and taken to the Center for Forensic Science where they are tested. However, since hospital samples may not have been officially sealed, continuity will be more difficult to prove. The Crown will have to call every individual who handled the samples prior to their collection by the police, as witnesses. In R. v. Katsigiorgis, the court ruled that it is not a violation of s. 8 for the police to seal the samples prior to obtaining a search warrant, in order to preserve continuity. However, there is no evidence that the police did this in the Tiger Wood’s case.

If the Tiger Woods incident occurred in Toronto and the police were able to prove reasonable grounds, obtain a search warrant, establish that the samples were taken for legitimate medical reasons, and establish timing and continuity, the samples would be admissible in a court of law. As the case played out in Florida, the Florida police released a statement saying that they did not suspect any foul play before the rumors about Tiger’s blood samples began to circulate. Assuming the exact same facts occurred in Toronto, this press release would make it extremely unlikely that the Toronto police could obtain a search warrant and seize the samples. This is because, by admitting that they did not suspect foul play, the police admitted that they did not suspect that Tiger was impaired. In other words, they admitted that they did not have reasonable and probable grounds to obtain a search warrant. Thus, if Tiger was indeed impaired at the time of the accident, the evidence of impairment would not be admissible at trial, whether that trial occurred in Florida or Toronto.