LESA’s Search Warrants program is happening soon in Edmonton (February 19) and Calgary (February 26)!
Whether you are a Crown prosecutor or a defence lawyer, this program has plenty to offer. It discusses cutting edge issues that anyone dealing with search warrants will want to know about.
This program has two fantastic co-chairs: Christopher Evans QC and Karen Molle. This week, we spoke with Karen Molle to get her insight on what this program has to offer. Today’s blog shares her thoughts.
Why will the Search Warrants program benefit attendees? What will they gain?
Perhaps what they will gain that is most significant is familiarity with cutting edge issues that pertain to search warrants: the execution of search warrants, how to litigate a search warrant in a court case, and areas that to consider when reviewing the disclosure that they get – either as a Crown or defence counsel – in terms of issues that are being litigated across the country that they may not be aware of.
What can you tell me about the topics covered in the program?
In terms of the first topic – Garofoli Applications – we generally all know the test that pertains to those applications, but when you put that into practice, in terms of how it should be properly litigated in a trial or in a voir dire, the waters become a little bit murky. There are different ideas out there, even in terms of judicial commentary, about the appropriate procedures. The other thing that often times happens is that we’re not just dealing with a Garofoli voir dire; we might be dealing with an attendee voir dire or a section 8 voir dire, based on a warrantless search where there is an onus on the Crown as opposed to an onus on the Defence. … To hear from Justice Hughes and Judge Brown in Calgary, to hear their perspective and their guidance … will be of significant importance to people who are litigating these things. In Edmonton, we have Ronald Reimer coming, who has both appellate and trial experience. He has argued many cases in the Supreme Court of Canada, and he will have that additional perspective that he can share with us in terms of how these things should be run in order to litigate the issues at play. … So that’s our first topic. It’s really going to be practical, how these things should be litigated, the pitfalls or problems that can arise.
[For the Trending Issues and Computer Searches topics], Elizabeth Lewis and Neil Cobb have a number of very interesting, cutting edge decisions that have come out of British Columbia in terms of third party rights. One of their cases involved the expectation of privacy in sent text messages. They also litigated Vu in the Supreme Court of Canada. In my view, they’re really pushing the envelope in terms of privacy issues. In Alberta, knowing how they’re approaching these issues – not just reading their cases but actually hearing their perspectives – will be invaluable.
Daniel Song is going to talk about the Mian decision from the Supreme Court of Canada. That case didn’t involve a search warrant, but it did involve delay in access to counsel. What we often see in cases where we’re dealing with search warrants is that the police will delay access to counsel. … Is that legally justified and what remedies are available when there has been a delay in access to counsel? … Can evidence be excluded?
Dane Bullerwell is going to discuss the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act. We have two standards for searches: one being reasonable grounds to suspect, and the other being reasonable grounds to believe. Our courts have determined that reasonable grounds to suspect is a reasonable standard in certain circumstances, and that’s generally where the expectation of privacy is on the lower end. It appears that this legislation, and the courts’ interpretation of it, is enabling highly private information – information for which there is a high expectation of privacy – to be disclosed to the police on the lower standard of reasonable grounds to suspect. Dane will be discussing the fallout of that in terms of our privacy and the significant implications of that erosion of the standards that we all thought applied.
Tell me about the range of perspectives presented by the faculty.
The idea is that this is a seminar for both Crown and Defence. We can all benefit from these topics: they are cutting edge, and they’re being litigated every day in our courts. It’s helpful for all of us to sit back and think about these things in more of an academic way. The law is still evolving in many of these areas, so it’s going to affect the practice of both the Defence and Crown, so, in my view, the program will really benefit anyone who practices criminal law dealing with any aspects of search warrants.
What are you most excited about for this program?
It’s hard to decide. I’m really interested to hear Daniel Song, given his experience with the Mian decision and delay in access to counsel. I think the concern there is that there appears to be a misunderstanding in terms of police practice. There seems to be a widespread belief that it’s appropriate to delay access to counsel in absence of any real evidence that it’s required, so I’m really interested to see what he has to say on that topic. The other one is the Trending Issues. Search warrants 30 years ago were police entering into a home and physically going through people’s processions. Today search warrants are far more invasive. … It’s astonishing how much information is just in your purse or your briefcase [on your handheld device]. … It’s going to be very interesting to see how that plays out. … Technology is changing so fast and has such potential to impact our privacy and impact our democracy, if we allow these kinds of invasions without having them properly litigated.
Register Now
The Search Warrants program is running soon, and we are looking forward to seeing you there. Register now to attend in in Edmonton (February 19) or Calgary (February 26)!
