The interception provisions of the Code were originally intended to respond to a series of decisions from the Supreme
Court of Canada on unauthorized electronic surveillance (22) As Bill C-109(23) progressed through Parliament in 1993, however, concerns were raised that section 184.4 lacked sufficient measures of oversight and accountability,(24) and it is interesting to note that at least one case has since found that the current section breaches section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, by contravening section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure (25) Of particul
ar concern ...[+++] were the absence of notice and reporting requirements, to balance the invasion of privacy caused by the interception (26) The court held that such safeguards would not interfere with the section’s objectives since notice and reporting would not “impact in any way upon the ability of the police to act in exigent circumstances” (27) The scope of the phrase “unlawful act” was also considered.Les dispositions du Code criminel portant sur l’interception avaient au départ
pour objet de donner suite à une série d’arrêts de la Cour suprême du Canada sur la surveillance électronique non autorisée(22). Pendant que le projet de loi C-109(23) progressait dans la filière législative en 1993, certains ont dit craindre que l’article 184.4 ne comporte pas suffisamment de mécanismes de surveillance et de reddition de comptes(24); fait intéressant, il a depuis été conclu dans au moins une cause que l’article actuel enfreint l’article 52 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 en contrevenant à l’article 8 de la Charte canadienne des droits et
...[+++] libertés, qui assure une protection contre les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies abusives(25).
