Posted: September 4th, 2022

Canadian Court Cases of Digital Evidence

Canadian Court Cases of Digital Evidence

Case Description Sheets
Case 1: R. v. Jones, 2017 S.C.C. 60, [2017] 2 S.C.R. 696
● The court in question: The Supreme Court of Canada
● The jurisdiction of the court: Criminal Case Jurisdiction
● Judicial District: Ontario
● The number of the case: 37194
● The date of Appeal Hearing: March 23, 2017
● The date of the judgment or decision: December 8, 2017
● The name of the person who presided over the case: McLachlin, Beverley; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Karakatsanis, Andromache; Gascon, Clément; Côté, Suzanne; Rowe, Malcolm
● The Name of the Appellant: Tristin Jones
● The name of the Respondents: Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Ontario.
● The dispute: Mr Jones had tried to defend himself from the charges of possessing firearms and drug trafficking by challenging the admissibility of text messages that had been gained via a Production Order granted to the Wireless Service provider
● The summary of the case: the accused had been convicted of firearms and drug trafficking charges based on proof obtained in text messages under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act – Possession for Trafficking – Marijuana. The charges had arisen from the law enforcement receiving information through a 911 call where the caller indicated seeing a white vehicle parked in the school parking lot. As it was parked, several vehicles had parked beside it and exchanges were happening through the windows. The police would come and watch the exchanges then stop the vehicle in sight. They would find baggies and marijuana paraphernalia; hence one of them believed that it had a reasonable reason to arrest the occupants due to his experiences and knowledge. The vehicle was further searched where an officer found one of the accused’s phones that had password protection. He would read two text messages concerning the buying of marijuana, and based on this. The accused would be re-arrested for trafficking and possessing for the former reasons. The phone was sent to the Technological crime Unit for a whole forensic analysis. The issues that would be raised was whether law enforcement did violate his Section 9 Charter rights during the first seizure at the scene of the arrest, the police station and when the phone was sent for forensic analysis. To this effect, the evidence needs to be excluded if the breach to the Charter Had occurred.
● The digital proof presented: Text Messages stored in the telecommunication service provider, Telus, infrastructure which included electronic conversations between the accused and the co-accused encompassing the case’s subject matter of drug trafficking and firearms.
❏ The medium involved: The text messages were legally seized via a production order granted under the Criminal Code by law enforcement to the telecommunication service provider. They would be retrieved from their storage infrastructure.
❏ The importance of digital proof: These text messages contained electronic conversations between the accused and co-accused used to establish that the accused authoring the messages did have a direct interest in the subject matter, drug trafficking.
● The verdict: The Supreme Court would find that the defendant had reasonable expectations of privacy in text messages under the provider’s storage. To this effect, the standing would challenge the production order under the Constitutional law Charter Of Rights, specifically Section 8. Nonetheless, the S.C.C. stated that the accused rights as per Section 8 of the Charter had not been breached since records of the text messages had been legally seized from the service provider’s infrastructure through the production order allowed under the Criminal Code. The accused conviction would be upheld.
● Other relevant information available: The Supreme court did, however, assert that text messages can attract a reasonable expectation of privacy regardless of their physical location and hence can be protected from unreasonable search or seizures as per Section 8 of the Charter
● Personal criticism: This is a decision that I believe should be made on principle rather than how the technology works since it is a matter of civil liberties and privacy. Failure to do this poses the risk of broader implications on privacy interests within the country as the court seeks to determine how to deal with information privacy in the digital age concerning criminal regulations.
● Internet link: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16897/index.do?site_preference=normal.
Case 2: R. v. Fearon, 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay S.C.C. 77, [2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay] S.C.R. 621
● The court in question: Supreme Court of Canada
● The jurisdiction of the court: Criminal Law Jurisdiction
● Judicial district; Ontario
● The number of the case: 35298
● The date of the hearing: May 23 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay
● The date of the judgment or decision: December 11 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay
● The name of the person who presided over the case: Judges McLachlin C.J. and LeBel, Abella, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Wagner JJ.
● The name of the applicant: Kevin Fearon
● The name of the respondent: Her Majesty The Queen.
● The indictment (s) or dispute: Whether the cursory search of the mobile phone’s incident during the arrest was a reasonable action incorporated by the police.
● The summary of the case (summary): Fearon and another individual known as Chapman had been arrested in connection to an armed robbery in a jewellery store. Fearon would be frisked by a law enforcement officer who found a cell phone in his pocket. As he perused the phone’s content, the officer found an image/photo of a handgun and a text message that had not been sent to a third party thus suggesting that the two individuals could be engaged in robbery. The message read,” “We did it was the jewellery at nigga burrrrrrrrrrr”. During the trial, Fearon indicated that his granted constitutional rights against unreasonable searches or seizures had been violated through the search conducted on his cell phone. The trial court and Ontario’s Court of Appeal heard the case that indicated that the right had not been violated. The Supreme Court would hear the appeal in May 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay before giving their final verdict in the same year.
● The digital proof presented: The text messages and images in the phone, including a handgun, were introduced as evidence by law enforcement during the trial.
❏ The medium Involved: Fearon had been subjected to a pat-down search which led to the police seizing the mobile phone in his pockets. It is when Sergeant Hucks, the officer phones by manipulating the keypads to the extent that he enters in distinct modes to gain access to the text messages and images in the phone.
❏ The importance of digital proof: The information in the text messages would establish a proper link to Fearon to the robbery offence for which he had been legally arrested. As interpreted by the Detective at the police station, the text message was understood to mean they had done it and asked where the jewellery was.
● The verdict: The Supreme Court would dismiss the appeal in a 4-3 decision, but all agree that mobile phones with no protection by passcodes have no less of a privacy interest compared to the phones with passcodes. The initial search of the phone to disclose all evidence did breach the accused Section 8 of the Charter rights thus have a right to be excluded as evidence. However, these contents were incidental to the accused’s arrest for robbery, were valued for objectives of law enforcement and had proper links to the offence in which the accused had been properly arrested; thus cannot be excluded. This view was accepted by the majority of judges who stated it satisfied the common law doctrine on searches. The minority judges indicated that the search was unconstitutional as the warrantless search of the phone incident to arrest was prima facie unreasonable and not authorized by law.
● Other relevant information available: Evidence that has been unconstitutionally obtained should be excluded. The conduct of the state was not specifically objectionable since law enforcement was acting in good faith, and their evidence was reliable. Nonetheless, the great interests in privacy for individuals and their electronic devices tips the balance to favour the exclusion. The unwarranted searches downplay the confidence of the public in their private communications, ideas and beliefs that need to be protected in the digital devices.
● Personal criticism: while the court does handle the notion of persons having higher privacy expectations when their devices are restricted through passcodes, the difference will be evident when law enforcement wants to look through the phone. The lack of a passcode may indicate lower privacy expectations, especially when the police searching through it. Therefore, it implies that it is better to have one’s phone locked to ensure that the policy does not conduct an unwarranted search on their device.
● Internet link: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay/2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delayscc77/2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delayscc77.html#document.
Case 3:AJU v GSU, 2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service ABQB 6
● The court in question: Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta
● The jurisdiction of the court: Civil law Jurisdiction
● Judicial district: Alberta
● The number of the case: 4803 155388
● The date of the hearing: 28th, 29th days of May and 16th day of June 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay For Me Without Delay.
● The date of the judgment or decision: January 22, 2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service
● The name of the person who presided over the case: Honourable Madam Justice D. L. Pentelechuk
● The name of the prosecutor or the applicant: A.J.U.
● The name of the defence counsel or the accused or the respondent: G.S.U.
● The name (s) of the prosecutor (s) for each party: R.R. Cochard, Q.C. for the Plaintiff and J.D. Kiriak for the Defendant
● The indictment (s) or dispute: A.J.U. was seeking joint custody and the continuation of a shared parenting arrangement that has been in place since she separated from GSU. The latter is seeking sole custody and primary residential care for their children. GSU claims that the children are exposed to danger under their mother’s care, their educational needs and learning disabilities are not handled through the sharing parenting arrangement, and there is no communication or cooperation between the two parties.
● The summary of the case (summary): This was a trial of custody and access to children, both the child and spousal support and issues related to marital property. During her marriage, A.J.U. Did get a Registered Nursing Diploma in 2003 and worked part-time until 2014: 2024 – Essay Writing Service. Custom Essay Services Cheap when she accepted a full-time position after the separation. GSU attained grade 9 education, worked in several labour-type employment opportunities, opened his own business with his father in 2005, which was closed in 2013 and later employed as a bulk oil driver. Each of the parties took a year of parental leave after the children were born. GSU sought spousal support of $500each month for three years, but the claim was dismissed for reasons of no entitlement. He was not entitled on compensatory grounds since A.J.U. Parents had paid for the latter’s education and also contributed to the family’s support during marriage. No evidence was presented that GSU did make career sacrifices for A.J.U. to return to school. A.J.U. did make substantial contributions to GSU businesses that were doing well before closure. A.J.U. had no entitlement based on non-compensatory grounds as no considerable disparities in incomes or lifestyles were demonstrated, and the division of property would equalize the parties’ position.
● The digital proof presented: The telephone conversations between parents or between a parent and a child, hacked emails and numerous text messages which had been compiled by GSU in his “Divorce Defense Book”.
❏ The medium (s) presented [involved]; The digital evidence had been compiled in the Divorce Defense Book, but some of the contents had been obtained through illegally installed spyware on his laptop.
❏ The importance of digital proof: This digital information which was illegally obtained was used to demonstrate that the A.J.U. Failed to be present for her children as she extensively focussed on emotional needs and engaged in extra-marital affairs. Nonetheless, since the information was illegally obtained would be rejected and be inadmissible in court since it did subvert the value of the whole report. There were evidentiary ripples such as the presumptively inadmissible spyware evidence being too prejudicial, embarrassing, and of questionable probative value.
● The verdict: The court decided to have the two divorced, an unequal division of marital property between the parties since GSU dissipated the assets without A.J.U. Knowledge or consent and parenting of the two children is to be shared, weeks alternated and Friday being the transition day after school.
● Other relevant information available: the court asserted that an imminent danger lies when the court depends greatly on expert opinions on the best interests of children. The opinion of a parenting expert on custody issues should be subjected to similar judicial scrutiny, the same way expert opinions in commercial or criminal trials are scrutinized.
● Personal criticism: The case did provide present perspectives on the admissibility of electronic evidence that had been illegally gained in the family law cases.
● Internet link: https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service/2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Serviceabqb6/2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Serviceabqb6.html?autocompleteStr=2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service%20ABQB%206&autocompletePos=1#_Toc409596972

Order | Check Discount