The lawful access debate continued for a third day on Friday with Bloc MP Claude DeBellefeuille asking Patricia Lattanzio, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, a critical question: why has the government chosen “the lowest possible threshold for obtaining information, that of reasonable grounds to suspect, rather than the more stringent threshold of reasonable grounds to believe.” She added that she did not understand the choice and would like a clear answer (I focused on this issue in a previous post). In keeping with the government’s discouraging defence of lawful access thus far (my posts on day one and day two of debate) Lattanzio’s response went for deception rather than clarity. After noting that reasonable grounds to suspect already appears in parts of the Criminal Code, she offered the government’s substantive defence of the lower threshold in a single sentence: “We also think that ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ is higher than the threshold of mere suspicion.” The problem is that mere suspicion isn’t a threshold for search at all, but rather the standard the courts point to when a search is unconstitutional.
Post Tagged with: "charter"
Federal Court Approves Consent Order Requiring Minister Steven Guilbeault to Unblock Ezra Levant on Twitter
The Federal Court has approved a consent order requiring Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault to unblock Rebel News publisher Ezra Levant on Twitter. The order stems from a 2021 lawsuit filed by Levant which argued that blocking “violated the Applicants’ constitutional rights under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in blocking access to official governmental Twitter accounts, and thereby limiting the Applicants’ ability to, inter alia, access and communicate important information, participate in public debate, and express views on matters of public concern.” The order also includes a $20,000 cost award to Levant. Regardless of your views of either Levant or Guilbeault, the principle that government ministers should not block access to their feeds given the implications for freedom of expression is an important one.
One Phone Call is Not Enough: Court Rules You Have the Right to Google a Lawyer
Hollywood crime dramas are infamous for the scene when an accused is taken to a local police station and permitted a single phone call to contact a relative or lawyer. While the storyline is myth – there is no limit on the number of phone calls available to an accused or detainee – a recent Alberta case established a new, real requirement for law enforcement. After a 19-year old struggled to find a lawyer using the telephone, the court ruled that police must provide an accused with Internet access in order to exercise their right to counsel.
Christopher McKay, who faced a driving while under the influence charge, told police that he wanted to exercise his right to legal counsel. McKay’s cellphone and other personal belongings were placed in a police locker when he arrived at the station. McKay was told there was a toll-free number available to contact a lawyer as well as White and Yellow pages that could be consulted. He called the toll-free number but was unable to find assistance.
My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that what followed was the product of a demographic deeply familiar Hollywood movies and reliant on the Internet. McKay assumed that he had used his single phone call and did not consider using directory assistance (411), which he did not think was a “viable search engine.” Instead, he noted that Google was his main method to search for information.
Supreme Court To Hear Case Challenging Constitutionality of Privacy Law
The Supreme Court of Canada yesterday granted leave for what could be the most important privacy case in years as it addresses “whether the Personal Information Protection Act [Alberta’s private sector privacy law] is contrary to s.2(b) of the Charter and if so, whether it constitutes a reasonable limit in […]
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules Internet Hate Provision Unconstitutional
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that the Internet hate provision found in the Human Rights Act is unconstitutional. In a decision released today, the Tribunal ruled that the restriction on speech imposed by the provision is not a reasonable limit under Section 1 of the Charter of Rights […]
Recent Posts
A Standard That Doesn’t Exist: Parliamentary Secretary for Justice Offers Misleading Defence of Bill C-22’s Lower Threshold for Subscriber Information 
More Surveillance Demands to Come?: Government Admits Bill C-22’s Lawful Access Provisions Could Be Expanded 
Win, Lose or Draw?: The Federal Court of Appeal Overrules a Key Copyright Case on Procedural Grounds 
The Lawful Access Debate Begins: Canadians Should Pay Attention to What the Government Isn’t Saying 
The Global Battle for Data Control: How the 2026 U.S. Report on Trade Barriers Targets Data Sovereignty Worldwide
