Admettre des preuves d'écoute électronique

Ang

Fr

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2016. (Rev. # 6811)

n.b.: Cette page est expérimentale. Si vous repérez une grammaire ou un texte anglais clairement incorrect, veuillez m'en informer à [email protected] et je le corrigerai dès que possible.

• < Fouilles, perquisitions et saisies
• < Mandats de perquisition
• < Écoutes téléphoniques

General Principles

Section 189(5) establishes the statutory rules and preconditions for the admissibility of certain intercept evidence. This would include:

• Third-Party Intercept Authorizations (185 and 186)
• One-Party Consent Intercept Authorizations (184.2)

Place

When dealing with land-line phones, the "place" refers to the two ends of the conversation. For cell phones, the place would describe the location of the cell towers.

Breach of Privacy

The Charter does not apply to recordings of conversations between to private citizens unless one of them is acting as an agent of the state. The only remedy for aggrieved parties is a civil one. The exceptions are where the person recording the communication is an "agent of the state" or a "part of government."

Non-Official Languages

A transcript of the wiretap that has been translated into an official language should be sufficient to satsify s. 189 requirements.

History

Under the previous legislation, s. 189(1) required automatic exclusion of any wiretap evidence unless "the interception was lawfully made."

Notice

The purpose of s. 189(5)(a) is to provide the defense "with timely disclosure of the evidence that may be tendered against him to enable him to prepare his defence."

What amounts to a "reasonable notice" will depend on the circumstances of the case in light of the purpose of the provision.

Reasonable notice can include notes occurring during pretrial motions "several months" before the empaneling of a jury.

189
(1) to (4) [Repealed, 1993, c. 40, s. 10]

Notice of intention to produce evidence

(5) The contents of a private communication that is obtained from an interception of the private communication pursuant to any provision of, or pursuant to an authorization given under, this Part [Pt. VI – Atteintes à la vie privée (art. 183 à 196.1)] shall not be received in evidence unless the party intending to adduce it has given to the accused reasonable notice of the intention together with

(a) a transcript of the private communication, where it will be adduced in the form of a recording, or a statement setting out full particulars of the private communication, where evidence of the private communication will be given viva voce; and

(b) a statement respecting the time, place and date of the private communication and the parties thereto, if known.

[omis (6)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 189; 1993, c. 40, s. 10.
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

The notice requirements under s. 189(5) are mandatory. A failure to comply with the conditions prevents a judge from receiving it as evidence.

What constitutes "reasonable notice" is "fact-driven" and depends on the circumstances.

No Notice for Preliminary Inquiry

Notice is not required for admitting wiretap evidence at a preliminary inquiry.

No Notice re Content

There is no obligation to provide notice of what exactly was intercepted.

Particulars

The notice provided under s. 189(5) be adequate, the defence of remedy under section 190 to see particulars.

Further particulars

190 Where an accused has been given notice pursuant to subsection 189(5) [avis d'intention de produire des preuves d'écoute électronique], any judge of the court in which the trial of the accused is being or is to be held may at any time order that further particulars be given of the private communication that is intended to be adduced in evidence.
1973-74, c. 50, s. 2.
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Failure to Notify

Where there has been no proper notice pursuant to s. 196, the intercept does not become unlawful.

Hearsay

Wiretaps, even though the contain hearsay, are frequently admitted into evidence. Typically, they are accepted under the "admissions against interest" exception.

They also will satisfy the principled approach requirements of necessity and reliability as wiretaps contain spontaneous declarations that are contemporaneously recorded are likely the best evidence available for the facts they establish. They provide "cogent and reliable" evidence of the parties to the conversation and their activities. The evidence is high quality since the parties are unaware that they are being listened to. They will have "enormous weight."

Privileged Evidence

189
[omis "(1) to (4)" and (5)]

Privileged evidence

(6) Any information obtained by an interception that, but for the interception, would have been privileged remains privileged and inadmissible as evidence without the consent of the person enjoying the privilege.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 189; 1993, c. 40, s. 10.

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

A wife who previously consented to a wiretap of conversations between her and her husband but then refuses to testify at trial may rely on spousal privilege s. 4(3) of the Evidence Act.

Procedure

Wiretap Transcripts

Transcripts of wiretaps may be put to the jury. The transcript however are only to be sued as aids and not evidence themselves. The court should be satisfied that the transcripts are "substantially accurate" before allowing them to be put to the jury.

Labels on Transcripts

It may be acceptable to put a wiretap transcript to a jury along with labels identifying the alleged identity of the speaker in the wiretap, even where identity is in dispute, as long as the jury is provided with limiting instructions that indicate the labels are not evidence and the jury must decide for themselves.

See Also

• Identity#Voice Identification