A LOOK DOWN THE ROAD TAKEN BY THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN R V MILLS

Perhaps we, in the legal world, should not have been surprised by R v Mills2019 SCC 22, the most recent decision on privacy and the application of that concept in the section 8 Charter regime. When it comes to Supreme Court decisions, we tend to dispense with the facts in favour of the principles, but Mills reminds us, facts do still matter in our highest court. Factually, pragmatically, and contextually, we understand that the investigative technique used in Mills simply needs to work. But in the name of principle, precedence, and visionary reach, Mills leaves us wondering. To throw even more dust into the eyes, overlaid on the decision is confusion. The seven-panel decision is fractured, leaving us to count on our fingers who agrees with who to manage some sort of majority decision. In the end, the numeric tally does not really matter. This is a new kind of Supreme Court where everyone agrees in the outcome but how they get there leads us onto the road “less travelled” or to update the metaphor, leads us through the web of internet connections less surfed. Or does it? Millsmay be surprising but not unpredictable. It may also be just another decision exploring the reach of privacy in our everyday world and therefore part of the narrative, not the last word.

I have already suggested the facts matter and they do. Mills was charged with offences, colloquially described as internet child luring offences. Through the medium of social network, luring does become decidedly lurid as sexually explicit messages and pictures are sent to entice children. In Mills, the contact with fourteen-year old “Leann” led to the “in person” meeting, which ended in the arrest. All seemingly run of the mill, so to speak. But what “made all the difference” in this case is the reality of “Leann” as a false identity for a police officer. In many ways, this investigative technique is no different than many other undercover operations such as police posing as sex workers or drug dealers. But what makes this technique unique is the manner in which the investigation was done. By filtering the technique through internet wires, the relationship possibly becomes a “private communication” attracting s. 8 Charter interest. At the core of this argument lies the “ghost in the wires” and whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in this type of internet communications. 

I say “this type” of “communication” because of the decision in R v Marakah,2017 SCC 59. There, the majority viewed text messaging between potential drug dealers as a private communication. Stripped of the bad personhood attached to that messaging, the majority called out the relationship engendered by such communication as attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy. Like the “reasonable hypothetical offender” (See e.g. R v Morrisey2000 SCC 39 at para 2)  or, to use the new age term, “reasonably foreseeable applications” (See R v Morrison2019 SCC 15 at para 170) used in s. 12 analysis, the messages become a statement of content neutrality (See Mills at paras 25, 110, 117­–122). There is no value judgment placed on Marakah’s bad choice of friends or even worse, his bad judgment to deal drugs. Instead, the focus is on fostering relationships, as in the law of privilege, and what it takes to protect and maintain private relationships in the context of law enforcement. In this way, the concept of communication as relationship-building is further explored in s. 8 through the relationships we see ourselves having with the state. 

Interestingly, the dissent in Marakah held onto the hard focus of hardware by emphasizing the container in which the communications were residing (at para 151). This view is an easy extension from previous s. 8 case law including the majority in R v Fearon, 2014 SCC 77, viewing the search and seizure or rather, as in the case of digital devices, the seizure and search of the device as the key to the analysis. However, this perspective failed to recognize the pervasiveness of the privacy issue throughout all aspects of s. 8. From standing to s. 24(2) exclusion, reasonable expectation of privacy creates the Charter space for the s. 8 discussion. Unsurprisingly, Mills does not step back into the container as the analytical driver of the decision. Instead, it is the meaning of relationships, which creates the patchwork of decisions in Mills

Yet Mills does not just define relationships worthy of s. 8 protection. Nor does the decision define relationships in a vacuum. Rather it defines relationships in the context of the normative standard embedded into the reasonable expectation of privacy analysis. In R v Reeves2018 SCC 56, Justice Karakatsanis, at paragraph 41, touted the “normative, not descriptive” standard as the overarching theme of s. 8 to acknowledge what we in the cyberworld already knew – that electronic conversations are human not machine directed. Instead of this free-floating concept of human relations, the majority in Mills takes this chimerical-like quality of normativeness and pins it squarely onto the Criminal Code. Just as the criminal law reflects our fundamental values by underlining those acts worthy of moral approbation through just sanctioning, so too does the normative quality of s. 8 reflect the morally based vision of a safe law-abiding society.

In Mills, the Supreme Court is not navel gazing or conducting blue sky visioning. In Mills, the majority looks directly at the conduct in question, no neutrality here, and sees the so-called relationship between a child “stranger” and a criminally-minded adult as unworthy of protection. Section 8 is not a shield; it is not the “happy place” where we are free from state intervention, and it is certainly not the private place where we can propagate illegal conduct to our hearts’ content. Yet, this normative view does not take away from the shades of privacy previously recognized by the Supreme Court. As in R v Jarvis2019 SCC 10, privacy has a universal meaning. In this way, a relationship stylized by the manner of communication or defined by a space where privacy ebbs and flows, what will be protected through s. 8 is deeply contextualized. This is vertical contextualization, in which the Court drills down deeply through the stakeholders’ strata. The “totality of the circumstances” is viewed not just through the accused’s lens, not just through the perspective of the victims, but also through the community’s sense of justice. As in other Supreme Court decisions, where the public interest shares space with individual rights (See e.g. R v Jordan2016 SCC 27 at para 25) normativeness involves collectiveness.

Nevertheless, rejecting the Mills scenario as Charter worthy still keeps the s. 8 conversation alive. True, in essentials, Mills is about what is not a privacy right under s. 8. Yet, the decision also provides the contours for what is or possibly still could be engaged by s.8. For instance, the intersection of electronic communications and Part VIinterceptions of that communication is still very much in issue. From the pseudo-majority of Justice Brown to the pseudo-majority of Justice Karakatsanis (I say “pseudo” as Justice Moldaver concurs with both decisions making both majority judgment worthy) including the minority view of Justice Martin, the presence of surveillance becomes the indicator of interception. For the majority, surveillance is decidedly old-school involving state authorities who are outside of but looking into the private lives of citizens, whilst Justice Martin flattens out surveillance as the state, no matter where placed, looking at citizens, no matter where located. Certainly, Justice Martin’s description is more attune with the Internet of Things and the connectivity we all now experience in which no-one knows who is watching whom. To distill the differing viewpoints on the issue, this is “watching” versus “intruding.” Of course, since Hunter v Southam[1984] 2 SCR 145 and the s. 8 textual conventions since that decision speak of state intrusion. Watching, on the other hand, is much more insidious, much more powerful, and of much more concern to the community sense of justice.

Another issue unresolved by Mills is the Charter applicability in the transitional grey area between state intrusion to state participation. If s. 8 of the Charter is not concerned with investigatory techniques in which the state initiates a conduit for enforcement, then when does s. 8 become relevant? This is where previous case decisions provide no clear answer. To see this obfuscation, we need to look the intersection of two scenarios. One scenario focuses on third party consent while the other engages the Mills situation emphasizes when state intrusion is used, without prior judicial authorization, for the purpose of implementing an investigative technique. 

Third party consent is not novel. Like reasonable expectation of privacy, third party consent can impact all stages of the s. 8 analysis. It impacts standing issues through the measurement of control. It impacts whether state authorities have lawful authority to seize and access an electronic device belonging to the accused or a third party. Just as privacy is not an “all or nothing” concept (R v Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 at para 61), neither is third party consent (See R v Cole2012 SCC 53). People share ideas, homes and hearts. People can too share control and authority over an object or a conversation. Millsdistinguishes the state as initiator of the private communication from the state as intervenor into a private communication despite consent from a third party. There is still Charter room in the shared conversational space where a third party is involved be it the concerned family member who hands over a device or the individual participating in the communication.

Mills permits the state actor to be whomsoever they need to be for investigative purposes but also as the initiator of the ruse. The decision leaves open the scenario where the concerned or involved third party hands over a device and the state authorities continue the conversation under the cover of the true participant of the communication. Here, there is still an intervention or a looking into a communication albeit through the eyes of the known recipient. There is a relationship, however the majority or minority defines it. Even if the original participant consents, Millsdoes not pronounce on the efficacy of that unauthorized intervention. This means, in Supreme Court terms, that we can expect more decisions on the issue.

 You may have noticed that I referenced in my opening paragraph a much-loved poem by Robert Frost, “The Road Not Taken.”  The poem is famous for symbolizing life’s choices and where they may or may not take us. In fact, that is not what the poem is about despite our ubiquitous reference to it as a life changing or even life affirming metaphor. When read carefully, the poem suggests we misread our life decisions. “Ages and ages hence” we will tell a tale of how we stood on the brink and choose a more challenging life journey. Yet, in actual fact, there was no such life altering choice to be made at the time as the roads “equally lay” “just as fair.” Perhaps the same can be said of the Mills decision. The decision does not take us down a road that makes “all the difference” but through the same interconnectivity of privacy ideas we already have before us. ‘Same but different’ may be an apt description of this decision and other recent Supreme Court rulings. Indeed, the fractured decision best mirrors who we are as a society, which is far from cohesive or uniform. 

We are presently very much at the crossroads of privacy and in the criss-crossing wires of the Internet of Things. There is an element of uncertainty as we stand at that intersection. But uncertainty may not be such a bad or scary prospect. Looked at with eyes wide open we can assess the potentialities of s. 8 and see perhaps through the differing perspectives of Mills a way forward taking with us a vision of who we want to be.

 

ENTER OR NOT HERE I COME? THE TENTATIVE (AND NOT SO TENTATIVE) VIEWS IN THE REEVES DECISION

Finally, a SCC decision where the concurring judgments discuss at length what they say they won’t discuss at length. It’s refreshing to read a decision that is so SCOTUS in approach – an Opinion – and two concurring Opinions at that. In R v Reeves2018 SCC 56, the newest decision from the Supreme Court building on the vast case law in the area of s. 8 of the Charter, the two concurring decisions by Justice Moldaver and Justice Côté take up an issue “benched” by the Justice Karakatsanis’s majority decision. In deciding Steeves has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a shared computer, the majority deems it unnecessary to decide the ancillary issue of whether the police entry into the home shared by the Reeves and his partner was legally justified in the first place.

This situation particularly resonates for me as a professor teaching 1Ls fundamental criminal law concepts. The cases I teach are rife with “we will get to that another day” sentiment. In JA[2011] 2 SCR 440, for example, both the majority of the then Chief Justice McLachlin and the dissent of Justice Fish leave open the Jobidon issue of consensual sexual activity that involves bodily harm. Again, in Mabior[2012] 2 SCR 584, Chief Justice McLachlin, after referencing sexually transmitted diseases other than HIV throughout the judgment, disappointedly states that “Where the line should be drawn with respect to diseases other than HIV is not before us” (at para 92).  

The majority in Reevestries to employ a similar yet different tactic to deflect a decision on the issue. Instead of the tantalizing suggestion that there will be some case on the horizon which will engage the issue squarely on, Justice Karakatsanis suggests the issue may be present but assessing it is unnecessary because there was a s. 8 violation in taking the computer and, in any event, Reeves’s counsel conceded the entry was lawful (paras 20 to 21). Furthermore, and here is the brush off, the issue raises “competing considerations” and to proceed without “full submissions” would be imprudent (at para 23). As an aside, Justices Côté and Brown, in their dissent in Trinity Western University,2018 SCC 32, took this same tack on the sticky issue of the standard of review as they declined to comment on the Doré/Loyola framework“in the absence of full submissions” (at para 266).

Despite this firm “no,” Justice Karakatsanis continues to explore the complexities inherent in such a decision (paras 24 and 25). That it invokes the intersection of the public and private spheres of our lives. That it highlights the nuances apparent in how we live those lives, raising questions of where and when our privacy becomes shared and if privacy amounts to mere physical space. I have explored the multi-verse of privacy and space in a previous blog posted on my Ideablawg website entitled, “Taking a Quick Survey of the Legal Landscape Through the Intersection of the Public and Private Living Space.” Overlaid is the societal desire to maintain public safety through the investigation of crime.The issue is, as suggested by Justice Karakatsanis, “complex” and requires a “considered response.” 

Yet, the presence of “competing considerations” is exactly why the concurring justices decide to give a response, considered or otherwise. For Justice Moldaver, a tentative response is better than none. In his view, direction from the Court is needed, albeit not binding direction. Justice Moldaver often gives advice to lawyers and trial judges when the issue requires it. For instance, in R v Rodgerson,[2015] 2 SCR 760, Justice Moldaver, offers some street-smart advice on how to run a murder case before a jury. In Reeves, Justice Moldaver does something different – he anticipates the issue as an issue and, in a forthright, make no bones about it manner, he states his “purpose in writing this concurrence is to express some tentative views on the issue of police entry into a shared residence” (at para 71). But that’s not all, the reason for writing something that is not a ruling, that is not a decision, that is not really even true obiter dicta as it is “tentative,” meaning he has not really made up his mind, is to fill a gap that is “a matter of considerable importance to the administration of criminal justice — and one which Parliament has to date left unaddressed.” This statement alone packs a wallop as Justice Moldaver anticipates an immediacy that cannot wait until another day. The matter is so pressing that it cannot wait for full submissions and cannot wait until he has fully formulated his opinion. This is, in other words, a matter of critical importance. It must be said.

Interestingly, “tentative views” have been offered in the Supreme Court previously. In eight SCC decisions such “tentative views” have been expressed. In the oldest such decision, St. John and Quebec R Co v Bank of British North America and the Hibbard Co1921 CanLII 574, Justice Anglin is not expressing a tentative view as much as he is making it clear that the tentative view he had of the case was not dispelled through oral argument (p 654). The other seven SCC decisions do express tentative views on matters on the basis those issues were “not raised before us” as with Justice Cartwright dissenting in Smith v The Queen[1960] SCR 776) and Justice La Forest in Tolofson v. Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) v Gagnon[1994] 3 SCR 1022.

An instance where “tentative views” matter, as they presage the binding ruling and have precedential impact, is in R v Bernard, [1988] 2 SCR 833. In that case, Justice Wilson’s concurring decision (at para 93 to 95), on the constitutionality of the Leary Rule limiting the effect of intoxication on mens rea, ultimately became the majority ruling of Justice Cory in R v Daviault, [1994] 3 SCR 63 (see also R v Penno,  [1990] 2 SCR 865 and R v Robinson[1996] 1 SCR 683). Not only did Justice Wilson’s opinion become law but it caused Parliament to hastily respond by adding s. 33.1 of the Code.

The “tentative views” presented in Reevesby Justice Moldaver are well-thought out and do not seem tentative at all. His analysis of the basis for the police officers’ entry into the shared home with the consent of Reeves partner is based in principle and on an application of years of case authority building upon police officer’s common law ancillary duties. In his 27-paragraph discussion on the issue, he deftly “tentatively described” (at para 96) the police common law duty to enter a residence to take a witness statement for purposes of an investigation. He sketches out five criteria to ensure the authority is carefully circumscribed through a practical and common-sense approach to the potential intrusive situation (at para 96). Despite his belief that his comments require fuller attention in the future, he continues the opinion with his further belief that his scenario for common law entry by the police, without reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been or that evidence will be found of an offence, is nevertheless constitutional (at para 97). He draws upon case authority which permits intrusive police action, in certain contained circumstances, based on reasonable suspicion. He concludes in paragraph 99, that as his criteria for entry is specifically constrained that it “may well meet s. 8’s reasonableness requirement.” Again, the discussion is not that it “will” meet or that it “does” meet but that it “may well” meet. The virtue testing is left for another day.

But the issue is not really left on the corner of the bench. In paragraphs 100 to 102, Justice Moldaver then applies his “tentative articulation of the lawful authority under which the police could enter a shared residence” to the facts of the case. He assumes his formulation is constitutional and finds it “quite possible” that up to the time of actual seizure of the computer, Reeves’s s. 8 rights remain intact. To add to this speculative brain-worthy exercise, Justice Moldaver decries the paucity of the record as it does not contain sufficient facts to properly determine the outcome of all of the five criteria formulated as part of the test.

In stark contrast is the decisive concurring decision of Justice Côté. There is nothing tentative about this presentation of the issue. She calls out the majority for declining to consider the issue considering “it was ably argued by the parties” and impacts the s. 24(2) analysis (para 105). Justice Côté takes the issue head on and makes quick work of years of carefully crafted s. 8 principles. She boldly finds that police can and should be entitled to enter a shared residence, without a warrant, based on the consent of one party alone. She does so in 13 paragraphs without the need to formulate or constrain police authority. She does so by focusing the s. 8 lens not on the accused but on the valid, subsisting and present consent of the co-habitant. In Edwards-like fashion she keeps the spotlight on the presence of the consent thereby dissolving the s.8 issue on the basis of an absence of a search or seizure. The entry is simply an everyday matter of invitation and is not the heightened arena of the state intruding into the privacy of a citizen’s life. With a flick of the switch, s. 8 disappears in favour of the down to earth realities of hearth and home. 

By deciding not to decide, the majority set the stage for a showdown but not the quick draw we are used to in reading a Supreme Court decision. Instead, we have in R v Reeves, a slow-motion decision that requires us to patiently await the right case to appear to give an authoritative voice to the tentative one. Let’s hope we don’t need to wait too long.

 

 

 

Taking a Quick Survey of the Legal Landscape Through the Intersection of the Public and the Private Living Space

Sometimes law creeps into the most unlikely areas. I was sharing an article by Alex Bozikovic, the architecture critic in the Globe and Mail, with my son, who is studying for his Master’s Degree in Architecture. The article comments on a structure, a house, designed for a modern family, who requires multigenerational living space for aging parents. The plan of the house is at once typical, with kitchen, bedrooms and living space, but at the same time atypical as it accommodates “kitchens.” At the heart of the home is a lively transparent “public” space connecting the generations so, as suggested by the owner, to “allow us to be together when we wanted to be.” My son commented approvingly of, what he called, “the stratigraphy of semipublic and private” running throughout the design. What struck me about his remark and the design of the house was the acceptable integration and embracement of the public into the private. This caused me to pause and consider what this sentiment and the design behind it means for the future of the legal landscape.

In my criminal law focused mind, the immediate correlation this design concept has with law matters is in the area of section 8, search and seizure, which provides protection of privacy rights. As with all Charter rights, this protection is not absolute but is framed against the permissible intrusions into our private sphere for the purposes of law enforcement. To ensure this frame fits and sits properly within that privacy sphere, judicial oversight is required. The frame should sit lightly yet must cover enough of that sphere to ensure public safety is not compromised. Similarly, the greater good must not be advanced at the expense of who we are as a society. This delicate balancing is done through the judicial gatekeeper’s lens, which is carefully calibrated through case law with a “cut once measure twice” philosophy. Indeed, the recent decisions of Marakah and Jones, which I commented on in previous posts you can access here (Marakhah) and here (Jones), serve as an example of this balancing and re-balancing of privacy rights. The majority of the Supreme Court seem to be recognizing that privacy is not a static concept nor is it a contained one but is a changeable concept requiring the law to be as nuanced as those conceptions of privacy seem to be.

However, when I look at how architectural space is conceived, I wonder if our legal conception of space is in step with this living space formulation. In terms of Marakah and Jones, which only now recognizes the integration of technology into our “living” spaces and therefore changes our legal conception of those spaces, the concern becomes more fundamental: does the generation that fashioned “reasonable expectation of privacy” truly understand what this generation expects from their “reasonable expectation of privacy?” Public and private are not in opposition, but as vividly exemplified in the multigenerational design of the house, they live together harmoniously. But it goes further: public and private flow from one extreme to another continuously as the core meaning of these terms ebb and flow. When my son refers to the “semi-public” aspects of the house design, he isn’t just referencing the transparent walls which permits the public into that living space but is also referencing the semi-public inner space of the home, which fluxes between one generational family to another. Is our law that flexible? Can it understand the layering and flow of the new reality of space, which embraces public and private occurring within the same time frame and essentially creates a collapsing of time as space recombines these terms into one “space”?

The irony of this “new” conception of space is that it is not in fact new. In Ancient Rome and in Ancient Greece, the home or domus occupied by the upper class was both publicus, of the people, and privus, of the individual. The Ancient Roman domus, for example, was often sandwiched between commercial premises, which may be owned by the home owner as well. Additionally, the living space inside the domus was open to the public demands of the “master of the house” or the dominus, who would receive daily morning greetings (salutatio) from his clients (those whom he gave monetary and economic support to in exchange for their support often in the political arena). For more on this, start here. It is only as society expanded that our concepts of public and private separated. Now that technology has brought us in close contact again, it might be time to be open to a totally modern approach to the legally constructed frame of privacy rights.

Consistent with this view, is further commentary made in Bozikovic’s article calling for a renewed approach to land use laws, which traditionally precludes multigenerational home design. The article maintains that post World War Two, the vision of people living separate and apart but together in one community, was the essence of “tidy” modernity. But that vision is contrived as life cannot be contained in a pre-fabricated frame but must be permitted to bleed over the edges. The need to blur the lines between private and public may be contrary to the bright lines we are taught to expect from the law, but the alternative may be just as murky. Without a living and breathing law that is reflective of the generation who must live by it, we, sitting in the legal landscape, will be left behind.

This brings me to the final connection this article brought to mind, which is the future use of predictive analytics in legal decision-making. In this area the collision of private and public space is a matter of concern rather than a matter of celebration. If the Charter is designed to protect informational privacy as a matter of self-autonomy and dignity, then the prospect of our waking moments being mined for data in order to suggest what we may or may not do in the future is legally concerning. This concern becomes magnified when such big data is funnelled into a “black-box” algorithms which uses the information to deny people bail or sentence them to long terms of incarceration. This concern with transparency and accountability in the realm of analytics is now front and centre in the soon to be “live” European Union General Date Protection Regulation or GDPR. Although the legislation was approved in 2016, the rules contained therein will be enforced as of May 25, 2018. This regulation of data privacy couples with the AI Now Institute 2017 Report on the use of Artificial Intelligence or AI mechanisms through the lens of civil rights and liberties, bias and inclusion and ethics is a must read for those legal minds concerned with the computerized mind making choices and decisions that impact life, liberty and security of the person. In Canada, we need to be doing more open access discussion of these thorny issues which intersect law, technology and social science. For more information, I highly recommend a google search and follow on Twitter my colleague at the University of Calgary law, Emily Laidlaw, who does research and writing in the area of regulation of the internet. Her blog postings on the faculty’s ABlawg website can be found here. Finally, I add to this eclectic mix, a recent article based upon a conference in Barcelona on  Internet, Law & Politics entitled “Personal Data Protection as a Nonfunctional Requirement in the Smart City’s Development” by Lorenzo Dell Corte (Tilburg University & TU Delft), Bastiaan van Loenen (TU Delft), and Colette Cuijpers (Tilburg University) and the intersection between issues of privacy, regulation and the support for the Smart City integrating this new technology.

The kind of interdisciplinary work needed to truly unpack and understand these issues and the significance to the legal landscape is possible and needs to be done. In some ways the scholarly approach needed, involving law, architecture, technology and politics, is a micro-reflection of the “modern” spaces we will be living in and constructing in the near future. Considering that, it is time to broaden the legal landscape and allow the private and public to come in.

 

 

Keeping up with the Joneses in the Supreme Court of Canada: The Triumphal Return of the Presumption of Innocence

In addition to the criminal, evidence and advocacy courses I teach, I also teach 1Ls Legislation. Statutory interpretation looms large in that course. One of the analytical tools used in interpreting a statute, albeit in the context of the modern approach, is the concept of absurdity. If the plain reading of the statute would result in an absurdity, then the Courts will look for other interpretations consistent or harmonious with the context and scheme of the Act. Absurdity is a powerful interpretative tool and fits nicely in the legal trope: Law is reasoned and reasonable. It is also logical and helpful. Law is not absurd. This concept of absurdity transcends statutory interpretation and is an overarching principle of law generally. The proper response to Dickens’s Mrs. Bumble should therefore be: the law is not “a ass.” With the recent release of R v Jones, the Court clears up a true absurdity or as Justice Côté for the majority puts it, a “catch-22” situation, relating to whether Jones has standing to argue the Charter issue. Better yet, the Supreme Court clears up this concerning conundrum with the powerful and triumphal use of the presumption of innocence. This summarizes in a nutshell why the recent Supreme Court decision in Jones is a welcome addition to s. 8 case law.

The decision does not have the powerful punch found in the companion decision of Marakah, but it has “legs.” What is this “major major” issue? Put simply, according to previous case law (R v Edwards, 1996 SCC), in order to engage a justiciable Charter issue, the accused must establish a reasonable expectation of privacy (REP) in relation to the thing seized. It must be remembered that s. 8 protects people not places or things. The purpose of the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure is to maintain an acceptable societal balance between an individual’s right to be free from state intrusion and the state’s need to intrude into an individual’s private life to maintain public safety and law enforcement. This “push-me pull-you” sense of balance is constantly being recalibrated by the courts in an effort to protect core democratic values underlying the Charter. This recalibration cannot be done in a vacuum but within the context of what currently matters to us as a society. In our courts, context is everything: from the meta-analysis of statutes as found in the modern approach to statutory interpretation to the specific flexibly-applied factors in the REP analysis. In order to argue REP, the accused must be literally or metaphorically standing in ground zero or in the circle of impact. If outside this Charter imbued impact zone, the accused cannot be aggrieved and cannot argue for exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

Typically, it is not difficult to draw a circle of impact around the accused, particularly if the search or seizure are items personally connected to the accused. What does raise standing difficulties is where identity or ownership is in issue. Here’s the rub: once you admit you have standing, as in “you are the person sending the text messages about trafficking in firearms,” you cannot ethically suggest at trial “you are not the person sending the text messages about trafficking in firearms.” This Schrödinger’s cat-like conundrum requires counsel to make tactical decisions which may chip away at an accused’s right to make full answer and defence. The accused by taking the “not me” position is in essence giving up the right to argue a Charter violation. The Jones decision thankfully challenges that presumption and fixes it.

First, let’s start our analysis with the Edwards decision. In that decision, the majority, authored by Justice Cory, were less than impressed with the accused’s position on appeal, which was markedly different than at trial on the issue of ownership. The accused at trial testified that the drugs found in a third-party’s apartment were not his drugs. That position was maintained in the appellate court. It was only in the Supreme Court of Canada that the accused changed a “fundamentally important aspect of the evidence” in admitting that the drugs were indeed his property. This could not be countenanced as by changing the position the Appellant was relying on a different aspect of the REP, namely privacy in the drugs as opposed to REP in the apartment where the drugs were located.

In Jones, the situation was different. The accused did not lead any evidence he was the author and sender of the message. Instead, the defence relied on the Crown’s “theory” that the accused was the author and sender. The application judge found the accused could not rely on speculative “evidence” and therefore he had no standing to raise the s. 8 issue. But, as mentioned, how else could the defence advance a pressing Charter argument without compromising the defence? A legitimate goal of a trial is to put the Crown to the test of its case and to require the Crown prove all essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. One of those elements is identity of the owner of the illegal item. If identity is in issue, the defence cannot “have its cake and eat it too” by arguing in the alternative. Once an admission is made on an essential element such as identity of the owner, it is an admission of fact that cannot be admitted for limited purposes only. Law, ethics and the Charter prohibit such a paradoxical stance.

Justice Côté recognizes the unfairness inherent in the standing paradox and soundly rejects the absurdity of the outcome. At paragraph 19 she approves of the defence’s reliance on the Crown’s theory as a foundation for the Charter argument and leans on a purposive, normative approach to the paradox. This approach involves two strands invoking the low hurdle required to overcome the subjective component of the REP analysis and invoking the Charter itself.

First, some background on the REP factors, which are situated in and viewed through the factual circumstances of the case. The factors are a tailored-made, come-as-you-are assessment. Yet, it is an assessment that must be nestled in the social fabric. In a previous blog posting (also a podcast!) on s. 6 of the Criminal Code – the codification of the presumption of innocence – I alluded to the golden thread metaphor of that presumption. That concept of the golden thread, arising from Lord Sankey’s decision in the Woolmington case, maintains the presumption of innocence and the Crown’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt by conceptually weaving the presumption of innocence into our social fabric. Similarly, Justice Côté’s solution to the standing paradox connects back in web-like fashion to the presumption of innocence. It does so through an acknowledgment of the generous interpretation of the REP factors as normative ones and through the protective nature of the Charter right against self-incrimination under s. 13.

The nexus point for these justifications to permit an accused to have section 8 standing even where they deny connection to the offence is that golden thread of innocence. It is nice to see its triumphal return as a recognition of the normative values we hold. It is also an essential reminder that at the heart of the REP analysis is the preservation of those societal values. In many ways, section 8 principles and the section 8 analysis of those principles serve as a perfect view into the justice system with the golden thread as the ultimate symbol of why the right of the state to intrude into our lives must be tempered by the right of an individual to be free from such intrusion.

 

Can We Talk? A Brief Look At The Supreme Court of Canada’s Holistic Approach to Electronic Conversations

I am starting this blog posting with a pop culture literary reference. As soon as I read paragraph 17 of the Chief Justice’s decision in Marakah, the passage on taking the “holistic view” of the subject matter of the search as an “electronic conversation” transported me through space and time to a reading of Douglas Adam’s Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency (also now a tv series). The premise of the book is the concept of universal connectiveness through space and time. Dirk appears exactly where and when he should appear. Superficially, there may be no rhyme or reason for his appearances but on a deeper, holistic level there is, as they say, “method in his madness.” What appears chaotic is in fact logical – at least logical when viewing the events holistically. So too the majority in Marakah, authored by our very soon to be retired Chief Justice, looks beyond the heaviness of section 8 case law and clears a holistically-enhanced path toward search and seizure in the digital age.

To be honest, there are no real surprises in the majority’s approach to the s. 8 conundrum of text messages in the hands of a third party. What makes the decision so startling is the stark contrast between the universal, contextual and principled approach embraced by the majority and the law and order, hardware focused, nuts and bolts “modalities of transmission” approach of Justice Moldaver’s dissent. As in Fearon, this contrast between the majority and dissent highlights the divisiveness of technology. Not unlike grammar school where we thought about where to put the proper accent on the syllable (syl-la-ble as opposed to syl-la-ble), Marakah requires us to think about the proper emphasis the rule of law should place on privacy and technology.  Is it, as envisioned by the majority, an emphasis on human interaction involving the everydayness of conversations, which engage the who, what, when, where and how of that interaction? Or, is it, as suggested by the dissent, a matter of hardware choices, like going to the local Best Buy and using the device that is at hand (and fits best in your hand) at the time. The bigger digital question then emerges: how connected are we to our technology and how do we protect our society while in that immersive state?

Although Marakah gives us a crystal clear pixilated picture of section 8, standing, and reasonable expectation of privacy, it does not give us a sense of identity that Justice Karakatsanis did in the dissent in Fearon. I have written in a previous posting on Fearon of the differing linguistic choices employed in the majority and dissent in that case as a precedential device  (see “A Fresh Look at Fearon: How Language Informs The Law”). In Fearon, the public safety, law enforcement objectives trope is used by Justice Cromwell to strike a balance between privacy and state intrusion. The decision looks at the granule in an attempt to provide a teachable moment in the search for the reasonable search and seizure. In that decision, the chalice-like quality of the phone as a container was retained. For Justice Cromwell and the majority, the rule of law is predominant against the backdrop setting of technology. In contrast, Justice Karakatsanis in dissent renders her decision in the digital new world of technology using the aspirational aspect of our Charter values as a guide.

Similarly, Chief Justice McLachlin in Marakah anchors the privacy dimension of s. 8 to who we are as a society as envisioned through our Charter. We bare our souls through our emojis, our Snapchat stickers, and our cartoon inspired Bitmoji doppelgängers. It is no longer Descartes’s simplistic “I think therefore I am” but “I text therefore I am” or better yet, “I press send, that’s who I am.” The Chief Justice in Marakah crystallizes what we all believe, that the future is built on micro-chips, yet the human thumbprint can still be seen in its wires. Marakah sends that message loud and clear and, if our phone is not set to silent, we receive that message just as clearly.

 

Next blog up – “Keeping Up with the Joneses”: The SCC’s Decision in R v Jones

 

A Fresh Look at Fearon: How Language Informs The Law

A case commentary typically expounds on the legal doctrinal issues raised by the decision and rarely looks at the judgment as a literary document. The final full SCC judgment of the year, Fearon, has been much discussed on the doctrinal level but as a final 2014 legal send-off, a different kind of case commentary is in order.

On a literary linguistic level, the Fearon case is a fascinating example of how the majority and the dissent employ differing or shall we say dueling word usage. The choice of terminology is not only intended to signal a very particular perspective but firmly connects the decisions to doctrinal perspectives emanating from prior cases. This continuity with the past provides precedential value to the two decisions and challenges us, as readers, to determine which decision is really the right one. Hand in hand with this analysis, is the revealing metaphors abounding in these decisions.

Let’s first look at the majority decision written by Justice Cromwell. The first term used in this decision is the phrase “truly incidental” as in the police generally (note that the general versus the specific is also underlined in the majority decision) have a common law power to search a cell phone incident to arrest if the search is truly incidental to the arrest. Not just incidental but truly incidental. In the judgment there are 22 incidents of this phrase, all in the majority decision! Yet, in terms of previous SCC cases, the term appears only in the Caslake decision, which found an “inventory” search of an accused’s vehicle, hours after arrest, invalid as such a search was not “truly” incidental. For a search to be truly incidental, there must be a “valid purpose” connected to the arrest. By the way, the term “valid purpose” pops up 5 times in the majority judgment.

Caslake is referred to 15 times in the judgment, with 12 references in the majority and 3 in the dissent. The dissent refers to the generalities of Caslake - as to when a warrantless search may be appropriate - and does not mimic the s. 8 language as the majority does. Although “truly incidental” is found in only 2 SCC criminal cases, the term is used in lower court nomenclature. In Ontario, including Fearon, there are about 46 cases using the term but they all occur after 1998, the year the SCC decision in Caslake was released. Although the Manitoba Court of Appeal decided the lower court decision in 1995, Caslake, was not, as yet, part of the s.8 vocabulary.

Before we move onto other terminology, note that the phrase “strictly incidental” is used only once as is the phrase “properly incidental.” According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “truly” is defined, for Fearon purposes, as “without question or doubt” and “strictly” means “rigorously conforming to principle or a norm or condition.”

The word “prompt” is used 31 times, with only two of those occasions by the dissent and for very different reasons. The majority uses the word “prompt,” defined as “performed readily or immediately” to provide the underlying reason for a search incident to arrest as the immediate need to investigate the offence by gathering crucial evidence.  It is the timeliness and the speed with which the police must pursue this investigation, which underlies the majority decision. Conversely, one of the times the dissent uses “promptly” is in reference to Justice Cromwell’s majority decision and the other occurrence is to highlight how quickly the police, in the case, applied for a warrant when case law suggested they needed to do so. Thus the term “immediate” or “immediately” is used often throughout as well.

Another phrase used liberally throughout the majority decision is the phrase “law enforcement objectives,” which is used 26 times, 4 of which is in the dissent. Again, 3 of those 4 occasions in the dissent are direct references to Justice Cromwell’s majority decision. This term is used in 4 previous SCC cases, 3 of which are search and seizure cases being the Law case from 2002 – privacy interest in stolen property; Chehil – sniffer dog case involving the search of vehicles from 2013; and the Stillman case of 1997 the case on the seizure of bodily samples and discussed at length in Fearon. The term “law enforcement” is further described in the majority judgment as being “important” 12 times in the majority.

The word use is much different in the dissent. Indeed, the atmosphere of the two decisions differs dramatically. Justice Cromwell’s decision has a law and order aspect reminding us of the need for investigatory powers to enhance and uphold the rule of law. As will be discussed below, the choice of words highlights this theme through the use of metaphors involving balancing and weighing and metaphors involving the limitation of space and time.

In contrast, the dissent is a decision marked by Charter values and modernity – it reads like a law school paper on constitutional rights and freedoms, inviting the reader to muse on the lofty ideals crucial to a free and democratic society. Indeed that term, “free and democratic society” appears three times in the dissent (plus “democracy” appearing once) and appears there only with no such Charter values relied upon in the majority, other than the balancing of rights required under s.8.

Other Charter values involving individual rights and freedoms are also relied upon in the dissent decision but it is the word “privacy” that trumps them all. This word is used 123 times in the decision with the word used 37 times in the majority but a whopping 86 times in the dissent. Certainly “privacy” is a word that at some point must be used by the majority when the decision speaks to the balancing of rights under s. 8 but more telling is the use of the word “private” in the decision. It occurs once in the majority but only in reference to strip searches and “private areas.” In the dissent however “private” occurs 27 times to describe “private digital devices,” “private lives,” and the “private sphere,” among some of the uses of the term. Again, this term is signaling the core of the dissent’s decision that privacy is at stake in the case and therefore it is privacy and the living of the “good” life protected by Charter values which are be the controlling issues in the case.

Not only are certain terms and phrases utilized to bolster each of these decisions but the decisions use the literary device of metaphor to solidify and justify the decisions as well. Thus, both the majority and dissent use balancing and weighing metaphors (25 times) to support different outcomes. The majority relies heavily on space metaphors and the desire to delineate the space wherein the rule of law must reside requiring the use of the words “scope” and “parameters” and “limits” and “points” by the majority. The majority also uses work or structure metaphors, using the term “framework,” “task,” and “link.” The dissent uses social words connoting society and community such as “lives,” “relationships” and “intimate” with a liberal use of emotive terms such as “likes and dislikes, our fears, hopes, opinions, beliefs and ideas.” The metaphor of “big brother” also looms large as a pointed reference to Orwell’s 1984 figures in the dissent. In contrast the concept of freedom and the ability to choose one’s own path is highlighted.

There are many other nuggets in this judgment worth discussing as a counter-point or enhancement of a pure doctrinal study of the case. It will indeed be interesting if any future SCC cases utilize this stark linguistic contrast or if it is merely a result of the impassioned differences on the SCC on this particular issue, which determined choice of language. 

I must at this point acknowledge Professor Jonnette Watson-Hamilton, for whom I did some research on metaphors and language many years ago while pursuing my Masters at the University of Calgary, Faculty of Law. She introduced me to the critical theories of language involving the use of metaphors in legal decision-making – a “truly” illuminating experience! Review her articles written to access her publications involving language and metaphor.

For further information on this, start with the seminal works by cognitive linguist George Lakoff, particularly Metaphors We Live By, which Lakoff wrote with Mark Johnson. There are now multiple scholarly articles involving metaphors and linguistic techniques in legal discourse. The starting point for this is found in the articles written by Robert Cover, a fantastic legal scholar, sadly now deceased. Read his two seminal articles entitled Violence and the Word and Nomos and Narrative. I have also written a previous blog on Cover called Is Violence The Word? Additionally, I have written two previous blogs using metaphors as part of the legal analysis in Impression and Claim: Are They Both The Same? and in Blogs As Graffiti.

 

Touching On The Biographical Core of Personal Information: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in Cole

As soon as the Supreme Court of Canada issued the Cole case, I went to the website to read it. Initially, I was drawn to the case hoping to find further clarification and the “filling in,” so to speak, of the legal principle of “reasonable expectation of privacy.” As with so many phrases used in law, legal interpretation is required to give the terms a more robust character and to solidify the meaning so that the mere hearing of the term conjures up the correct legal principle or the proper connections to be made between case law and precedents. The term of “reasonable expectation of privacy” is one of those terms which requires this incremental corporeality in order to make the law more certain. This is particularly needed in the Charter universe where heady terms like “Liberty” and “Freedom”, which by the way are not synonymous according to Chief Justice Dickson in the Edwards Books and Arts case, delineate the parameters of our Charter rights.

Certainly, the Supreme Court of Canada did not disappoint in the Cole decision, as they “filled in” the term in relation to the work place. In doing so, the court answered the question of whether or not there is a line drawn between personal and work and if so, where that line can and should be drawn. Of course, the judgment is not so practical as to suggest the exact place in which the line rests, but it does serve as a guideline for the employer-employee relationship. This posting, however, will not be a critical legal analysis of the judgment in relation to the answer provided by the court. Instead, this posting focuses on one paragraph, indeed the second paragraph of the majority judgment written by Justice Fish.

The second paragraph reads as follows:

Computers that are reasonably used for personal purposes — whether found in the workplace or the home — contain information that is meaningful, intimate, and touching on the user’s biographical core. Vis-a-vis the state, everyone in Canada is constitutionally entitled to expect privacy in personal information of this kind.

Two concepts found in this paragraph hold my interest. The first is the striking way in which the court defined the personal information found on a computer as “meaningful, intimate, and touching on the user’s biographical core.” Interestingly, this description, which does not refer to any previous case law, does, on a close reading, come from two earlier Supreme Court of Canada cases, which although are related to reasonable expectation of privacy in a search and seizure context, are not related to information found on a computer.

The first is the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada case, R v Tessling. This case is familiar to most criminal lawyers faced with an unreasonable search and seizure or section 8 challenge. Tessling involved the use by the RCMP of FLIR or forward looking infra-red technology. In this instance, the RCMP employed a FLIR camera on an overflight of property, which revealed infra-red images of the emission of heat radiating from the suspect property. The abnormally large amount of heat radiating from the observed property, together with informant information, resulted in the issuance of a search warrant. Police found on the property a large quantity of marijuana and weapons. Counsel at trial argued the overflight using the FLIR camera was an unreasonable search and seizure. The trial judge disagreed and the accused was convicted. However, the Court of Appeal for Ontario reversed the decision, finding there was a violation of s.8 and the evidence was excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada, through the unanimous decision written by Justice Binnie (an Ontario appointment), did not agree with the provincial appellate court. They did agree that the ability to be free from state action while at our home (as in "the house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress": Semayne's Case, [1558-1774] All E.R. Rep. 62 (1604)), unless there was prior judicial authorization to do so, was of paramount importance. Justice Binnie discussed how this concept of territorial privacy of the home has expanded to the protection of the bodily integrity of the person through the protection of the privacy of being at home. Thus, being at home suggests, “being the place where our most intimate and private activities are most likely to take place.” It is these activities, which the Charter must zealously safeguard.

In the end, the FLIR camera, revealing only heat images, did not step into the private refuge of the home. Equally, the camera did not step into the “intimate and private” activities, which are core to personal integrity and self-identity of a person as a human being.

Another issue discussed by Justice Binnie in Tessling, brings us to the second Supreme Court of Canada case to characterize personal information as “meaningful, intimate, and touching on the user’s biographical core.” According to Justice Binnie, the difficult decision was where to draw the line: at what point does the state over step their authority and wander improperly and, more importantly, unreasonably into the private lives of an individual. This too was the issue with which the Court struggled to understand in Cole.

To answer this, Justice Binnie turned to Justice Sopinka’s words in R v Plant (1993), another unreasonable search and seizure case involving a warrantless perimeter search of a dwelling house. Justice Sopinka, in starting from the underlying values of the Charter of “dignity, integrity, and autonomy,” found it an intellectually easy journey that

s. 8 of the Charter should seek to protect a biographical core of personal information which individuals in a free and democratic society would wish to maintain and control from dissemination to the state. This would include information which tends to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual. (Emphasis in bold added)

Thus, it is out of a nuanced discussion on the privacy of the home, which expanded the concept of the “home as our castle” metaphor to another metaphor found in the idiom “home is where the heart is,” suggesting that it is not the structure that reflects who we are but what is inside – the people and the thoughts we leave behind.

As an aside, the 2011 Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in R v Trapp, which is also a child pornography matter considering the “reasonable expectation of privacy”, utilized these cases in determining the legality of the seizure of information from the accused’s internet service provider. In fact, Justice Cameron, speaking for the court, reviewed this seizure

to identify the import or quality of this information, having regard for the principle that section 8 protects a biographical core of personal information, including information tending to reveal intimate details of the lifestyle and personal choices of the individual.(Emphasis added)

Such an analysis lead the court to conclude that the seizure of the information was not contrary to the Charter.

This brings me to the second point arising from this short second paragraph written by Justice Fish. The finding in Cole not only “fills in” the term “reasonable expectation of privacy” but also “fills in” or further defines the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of the Charter; the concept that the Charter reflects the underlying fundamental values of our society. The Cole decision merely continues the line of cases, which embrace the idea that Charter values, not necessarily concrete or corporeal Charter terms, lend meaning to Charter rights. Thus, it is the concept of “meaningful, intimate, and touching on the user’s biographical core,” coming from Charter values, which delineates the line of reasonableness.

Now back to the Cole case and the further expansion of personal information, as protected by Charter values, to personal information contained on a computer hard drive. Now, the private world of an individual’s has shrunk from the home as the container of our most intimate and meaningful thoughts to the nano-world of computers. Like a diary, the computer captures a timeline of who we are and who we want to be: our desires, our dreams, and our inner most thoughts. Recognizing this decision is truly a further “filling in” of Charter values helps us understand this decision more thoroughly and causes us to consider what will be next. Perhaps the intimacy of details on Facebook and other such sites will prove to attract more protection than initially thought. In any event, it is clear that the sanctity of the home has become the sanctity of the hard drive.