Summary

37194

Tristin Jones v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, et al.

(Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave)

Keywords

Canadian charter (Criminal) - Criminal law, Search and seizure (s. 8), Standing.

Summary

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter – Criminal law – Search and seizure – Standing to challenge – Search and seizure of historical text messages – Police obtained a Production Order pursuant to s. 487.012 of Part XV of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 for records and text messages from a cell phone account – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge's ruling that a Part VI authorization was not required for police to seize text messages temporarily stored in the course of providing service by a service provider – Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial judge's ruling that the applicant did not have standing to challenge the admissibility of text message conversations in which he was an alleged participant he was not the holder of the cellular telephone account from which the messages were seized – Charter s. 8.

There was a police investigation in Ottawa into the possession and trafficking of firearms. In the course of its investigation, the police obtained a Production Order pursuant to s. 487.012 of Part XV of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 for records and text messages from a cell phone number associated with Jafari Waldron. Telus was the only provider to retain historical text messaging information, which it provided to the police. Of particular interest was an exchange about the potential sale of a handgun between two phones – one associated with Waldron and one allegedly used by the applicant. Both phones were listed under other names. The applicant was convicted of: trafficking a firearm; conspiracy to traffic marihuana; possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking; possession of proceeds obtained by crime. The applicant’s conviction appeal was dismissed.