Summary

Keywords

Charter of Rights — Search and Seizure — Standing — Whether the applicants had standing to assert a violation of their rights pursuant to s. 8 of the Charter — Did the trial judge err in law in interpreting and applying the legal test to find that the applicants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in electronic communications in possession of a third party — Did the trial judge err in law by relying on the failure of the applicants to testify at the voir dire to find that they did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8.

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.

The Waltons operated a private security company. They were hired by Mr. Carter to provide protection services and to gather information in support of Mr. Carter’s position in a custody dispute. Mr. Braile worked for the Waltons. He contacted the mother of the child directly and then the police. A criminal investigation ensued. The police relied on Mr. Braile’s voluntary consent and electronic communications to secure the production orders and search warrants. At a voir dire, the trial judge dismissed the Waltons’ s. 8 Charter challenge finding that they lacked standing to bring the application because they did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the electronic communications stored by Mr. Braile on his email account. After a trial by judge and jury, Mr. Walton was convicted of criminal harassment. Both Mr. Walton and Ms. Walton were convicted of bribery of a peace officer and a firearms offence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Waltons’ appeal.

Lower Court Rulings