Autorisations d'interception par un tiers

Demande d’autorisation

185 (1) Pour l’obtention d’une autorisation visée à l’article 186, une demande est présentée ex parte et par écrit à un juge d’une cour supérieure de juridiction criminelle, ou à un juge au sens de l’article 552, et est signée par le procureur général de la province ou par le ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile ou par un mandataire spécialement désigné par écrit pour l’application du présent article par :

a) le ministre lui-même ou le sous-ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile lui-même, si l’infraction faisant l’objet de l’enquête est une infraction pour laquelle des poursuites peuvent, le cas échéant, être engagées sur l’instance du gouvernement du Canada et conduites par le procureur général du Canada ou en son nom;

b) le procureur général d’une province lui-même ou le sous-procureur général d’une province lui-même, dans les autres cas;

il doit y être joint un affidavit d’un agent de la paix ou d’un fonctionnaire public pouvant être fait sur la foi de renseignements tenus pour véridiques et indiquant ce qui suit :

c) les faits sur lesquels le déclarant se fonde pour justifier qu’à son avis il y a lieu d’accorder une autorisation, ainsi que les détails relatifs à l’infraction;

d) le genre de communication privée que l’on se propose d’intercepter;

e) les noms, adresses et professions, s’ils sont connus, de toutes les personnes dont les communications privées devraient être interceptées du fait qu’on a des motifs raisonnables de croire que cette interception pourra être utile à l’enquête relative à l’infraction et une description générale de la nature et de la situation du lieu, s’il est connu, où l’on se propose d’intercepter des communications privées et une description générale de la façon dont on se propose de procéder à cette interception;

f) le nombre de cas, s’il y a lieu, où une demande a été faite en vertu du présent article au sujet de l’infraction ou de la personne nommée dans l’affidavit conformément à l’alinéa e) et où la demande a été retirée ou aucune autorisation n’a été accordée, la date de chacune de ces demandes et le nom du juge auquel chacune a été présentée;

g) la période pour laquelle l’autorisation est demandée;

h) si d’autres méthodes d’enquête ont ou non été essayées, si elles ont ou non échoué, ou pourquoi elles paraissent avoir peu de chance de succès, ou si, étant donné l’urgence de l’affaire, il ne serait pas pratique de mener l’enquête relative à l’infraction en n’utilisant que les autres méthodes d’enquête.

[omis (1.1), (2), (3) et (4)]

L.R. (1985), ch. C-46, art. 185 1993, ch. 40, art. 5 1997, ch. 18, art. 8, ch. 23, art. 4 2001, ch. 32, art. 5, ch. 41, art. 6 et 133 2005, ch. 10, art. 22 et 34 2014, ch. 17, art. 32022, ch. 17, art. 7.

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

Opinion du juge

186 (1) Une autorisation visée au présent article peut être donnée si le juge auquel la demande est présentée est convaincu que :

a) d’une part, l’octroi de cette autorisation servirait au mieux l’administration de la justice;

b) d’autre part, d’autres méthodes d’enquête ont été essayées et ont échoué, ou ont peu de chance de succès, ou que l’urgence de l’affaire est telle qu’il ne serait pas pratique de mener l’enquête relative à l’infraction en n’utilisant que les autres méthodes d’enquête.

[omis (1.1), (2) et (3)]

Contenu et limite de l’autorisation

(4) Une autorisation doit :

a) indiquer l’infraction relativement à laquelle des communications privées pourront être interceptées;

b) indiquer le genre de communication privée qui pourra être interceptée;

c) indiquer, si elle est connue, l’identité des personnes dont les communications privées doivent être interceptées et donner une description générale du lieu où les communications privées pourront être interceptées, s’il est possible de donner une description générale de ce lieu, et une description générale de la façon dont les communications pourront être interceptées;

d) énoncer les modalités que le juge estime opportunes dans l’intérêt public;

e) être valide pour la période maximale de soixante jours qui y est indiquée.

Désignation de personnes

(5) Le ministre de la Sécurité publique et de la Protection civile ou le procureur général, selon le cas, peut désigner une ou plusieurs personnes qui pourront intercepter des communications privées aux termes d’autorisations.

Installation et enlèvement de dispositifs

(5.1) Il est entendu que l’autorisation est assortie du pouvoir d’installer secrètement un dispositif électromagnétique, acoustique, mécanique ou autre et de l’entretenir et l’enlever secrètement.

Enlèvement après expiration de l’autorisation

(5.2) Sur demande écrite ex parte, accompagnée d’un affidavit, le juge qui a donné l’autorisation visée au paragraphe (5.1) ou un juge compétent pour donner une telle autorisation peut donner une deuxième autorisation permettant que le dispositif en question soit enlevé secrètement après l’expiration de la première autorisation :

a) selon les modalités qu’il estime opportunes;

b) au cours de la période, d’au plus soixante jours, qu’il spécifie.

[omis (6), (7) et (8)]

L.R. (1985), ch. C-46, art. 186 1993, ch. 40, art. 6 1997, ch. 23, art. 5 1999, ch. 5, art. 5 2001, ch. 32, art. 6, ch. 41, art. 6.1 et 133 2005, ch. 10, art. 23 et 34 2014, ch. 17, art. 4, ch. 31, art. 9

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

186 [omis (1), (1.1) et (1.2)]

Obligation de refuser d’accorder l’autorisation

(2) Le juge auquel est faite une demande d’autorisation en vue d’intercepter des communications privées au bureau ou à la résidence d’un avocat, ou à tout autre endroit qui sert ordinairement à l’avocat ou à d’autres avocats pour la tenue de consultations avec des clients, doit refuser de l’accorder à moins qu’il ne soit convaincu qu’il existe des motifs raisonnables de croire que l’avocat, un autre avocat qui exerce le droit avec lui, un de ses employés, un employé de cet autre avocat ou une personne qui habite sa résidence a participé à une infraction ou s’apprête à le faire.

[omis (3), (4), (5), (5.1), (5.2), (6), (7) and (8)]

L.R. (1985), ch. C-46, art. 186 1993, ch. 40, art. 6 1997, ch. 23, art. 5 1999, ch. 5, art. 5 2001, ch. 32, art. 6, ch. 41, art. 6.1 et 133 2005, ch. 10, art. 23 et 34 2014, ch. 17, art. 4, ch. 31, art. 9

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2023. (Rev. # 18713)

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

Requirements

A judge may grant authorization under ss. 185 and 186 should they be satisfied that:

1. "it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice" (186(1)) and
2. there is investigative necessity

Judge to be satisfied

186 (1) An authorization under this section may be given if the judge to whom the application is made is satisfied

(a) that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so; and

(b) that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed or the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures.

[omis (1.1) et , (2), (3), (4), (5), (5.1), (5.2), (6), (7) and (8)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 186; 1993, c. 40, s. 6; 1997, c. 23, s. 5; 1999, c. 5, s. 5; 2001, c. 32, s. 6, c. 41, ss. 6.1, 133; 2005, c. 10, ss. 23, 34; 2014, c. 17, s. 4, c. 31, s. 9.
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Application

Application for authorization

185 (1) An application for an authorization to be given under section 186 [authorization of wiretap] shall be made ex parte and in writing to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 [definitions - judges] and shall be signed by the Attorney General of the province in which the application is made or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or an agent specially designated in writing for the purposes of this section by

(a) the Minister personally or the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness personally, if the offence under investigation is one in respect of which proceedings, if any, may be instituted at the instance of the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, or

(b) the Attorney General of a province personally or the Deputy Attorney General of a province personally, in any other case,

and shall be accompanied by an affidavit, which may be sworn on the information and belief of a peace officer or public officer deposing to the following matters:

(c) the facts relied on to justify the belief that an authorization should be given together with particulars of the offence,

(d) the type of private communication proposed to be intercepted,

(e) the names, addresses and occupations, if known, of all persons, the interception of whose private communications there are reasonable grounds to believe may assist the investigation of the offence, a general description of the nature and location of the place, if known, at which private communications are proposed to be intercepted and a general description of the manner of interception proposed to be used,

(f) the number of instances, if any, on which an application has been made under this section in relation to the offence and a person named in the affidavit pursuant to paragraph (e) and on which the application was withdrawn or no authorization was given, the date on which each application was made and the name of the judge to whom each application was made,

(g) the period for which the authorization is requested, and

(h) whether other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or why it appears they are unlikely to succeed or that the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures.

[omis (1.1), (2), (3) and (4)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 185; 1993, c. 40, s. 5; 1997, c. 18, s. 8, c. 23, s. 4; 2001, c. 32, s. 5, c. 41, ss. 6, 133; 2005, c. 10, ss. 22, 34; 2014, c. 17, s. 3; 2022, c. 17, s. 7.
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Before a superior court justice may grant an authorization under s. 186(1) requires that they be satisfied there be (1) "probable cause" and (2) "investigative necessity."

The authorizing judge may issue other warrants or orders at the same time where they are "related to the execution of the authorization."

The wording of s. 186(1) has the implied requirements of requiring "reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an offence has been, or is being, committed and that the authorization sought will afford evidence of that offence”. This requirement is lower than a standard of a prima facie case or proof on balance that an offence has been committed.

Prospective Offences

Notably this does not permit belief of future offences. However, it is reasonable to rely on the "speculative" nature of communications sought to be captured for probable cause.

Where no offence has been committed or is being committed, s. 186 is not available.

Telewarrant

The application by telewarrant may be available under s. 184.3.

Elements of an Application

The affidavit supporting an application under s. 185 and 186 should include the following:

1. "facts relied on to justify belief" that authorization is allows (185(1)(c))
2. "particulars of the offence" (185(1)(c))
3. "type of private communication proposed to be intercepted" (185)(1)(d))
4. "names, addresses and occupations, if known, of all persons" where there is RPG "private communications ... may assist the investigation" (185(1)(e))
5. "a general description of the nature and location of the place, if known, at which private communications are proposed to be intercepted" (185(1)(e))
6. "general description of the manner of interception proposed to be used," (185(1)(e))
7. "numer of instances", date of application, and name of judge who has previously received a s. 186 application relating to any named offence and a "person named" (185(1)(f))
8. "the period for which the authorization is requested" (185(1)(g)), and
9. investigative necessity (185(1)(h))

Concurrent Orders

A judge authorizing a wiretap under 186 can also grant other authorizations:

• Search warrant (487)
• General Warrant (487.01)
• Production Order (487.014)
• Trace Specified Communications Production (487.015)
• Transmission Data Production Orders (487.016)
• Production Orders for Tracking Data (487.017)
• Mandats de localisation (492.1)
• Transmission Data warrnat (492.2)

Designated Agent

Section 185 requires that only a Crown designated by the Attorney General as a wiretap agent may make the application for a 185/186, 188, or video wiretap.

186
[omis (1), (1.1), (2), (3) and (4)]

Persons designated

(5) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or the Attorney General, as the case may be, may designate a person or persons who may intercept private communications under authorizations.
[omis (5.1), (5.2), (6), (7) and (8)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 186; 1993, c. 40, s. 6; 1997, c. 23, s. 5; 1999, c. 5, s. 5; 2001, c. 32, s. 6, c. 41, ss. 6.1, 133; 2005, c. 10, ss. 23, 34; 2014, c. 17, s. 4, c. 31, s. 9.
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

A designated agent is not needed for a consent intercept under s. 184.2.

Role of Agent

The Crown agent does not have a "duty to undertake a thorough investigation into the investigative file." R c Ebanks, 2009 ONCA 851 (CanLII), at para 47 ("The Crown agent does not, however, have a duty to undertake a thorough investigation into the investigative file.") </ref>

Parliament added a crown agent requirement to "ensure … Fix that that the application makes out the reasonable grounds and investigative necessity requirements … And attending chambers to answer questions that the application judge may have."

Signature

The agent signing the application does not have to include any materials proving that they are authorized.

Grounds for Application

Wiretaps are investigative tools. All that is needed is a reasonable belief to grant the authorization. The fact that the belief turns out to be false is not relevant to the application.

Before a Judge can grant the wiretap warrant, he must be satisfied that the applicant has "reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a specific offence has been, is being, or is about to be committed." The police must also "have reasonable and probable grounds to think that the target of the authorization will in fact be at a particular place, or be communicating in a particular manner" that will give evidence towards to investigation.

A fishing expedition is not a proper basis to authorize the wiretap.

Where defence counsel has demonstrated sufficient basis, the court can order the affiant to be subject to cross-examination on the affidavit authorizing the warrant.

"may assist"

In addition to the requirements of investigative necessity and best interests in the administration of justice, the standard of proof for a wiretap is whether there are "reasonable grounds to believe that the interception of [the known persons'] communications may assist in the investigation of the offence".

Affiant

A wiretap can only be authorized when the justice is "provided with accurate and candid information."

There is no expectation that the grounds for a wiretap be sufficient to charge anyone with the named offences.

Best Interests of the Administration of Justice

Section 186(1)(a) requires that applicant to establish that the wiretap is in the "best interests of the administration of justice". In this context, it has two components:

1. that the judge is satisfied that "the authorization will further or advance the objectives of justice" and
2. the "balancing of the interests of law enforcement and the individual’s interest in privacy"

Probable Cause / Reasonable Ground to Believe

Section 186(1)(a) requires "that the judge must be satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that communications concerning the particular offence will be obtained through the interception sought." That is to say, the requirement of "reasonable and probable grounds" have been read into s. 186(1)(a).

The "probable cause" must relate to belief that:

1. a "specified crime has been or is being committed" and
2. the interception "will afford evidence of the specified crime"

The "will afford" requirement should be understood as relating to evidence that "may never exist" or that the wiretap may never reveal anything of importance. By the nature of the application it requires speculation.

Investigative Necessity

• Investigative Necessity

Types of Offences and Communications

The authorization must state the offence or offences that are being investigated by the interception. The offences must only be those listed under s. 183 as "designated offences".

186
[omis (1), (1.1), (2) and (3)]

Content and limitation of authorization

(4) An authorization shall

(a) state the offence in respect of which private communications may be intercepted;

(b) state the type of private communication that may be intercepted;

[omis (c), (d) and (e) [see Terms and Conditions]]

[omis (5), (5.1), (5.2), (6), (7) and (8)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 186; 1993, c. 40, s. 6; 1997, c. 23, s. 5; 1999, c. 5, s. 5; 2001, c. 32, s. 6, c. 41, ss. 6.1, 133; 2005, c. 10, ss. 23, 34; 2014, c. 17, s. 4, c. 31, s. 9.
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

"Offence"

Within the provisions of the wiretap sections of the code, "offence" refers to a specific closed-list of offences. Those offences are listed within s. 2. It will include any conspiracies, attempts or counselling to commit the offence, or any accessories after the fact.

• See Liste des infractions désignées éligibles à l'écoute électronique

Persons, Places and Manner of Interception

• Persons, Places and Manner of Interception

Terms and Conditions

• Third-Party Intercept Authorization Terms and Conditions

Application Procedure

An application under s. 186 must include a sworn affidavit by a "peace officer" or "public officer."

The affidavit must include:

• the facts relied upon (s. 185(1)(c))
• particulars of the investigated offence (s. 185(1)(c))
• the names, addresses and occupation, if known, of all persons whose communications "may assist" in the investigation (s. 185(1)(e))

Renewals

The wiretap may be renewed under s. 186(6):

186
[omis (1), (1.1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (5.1) and (5.2)]

Renewal of authorization

(6) Renewals of an authorization may be given by a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 [definitions - judges] on receipt by him or her of an ex parte application in writing signed by the Attorney General of the province in which the application is made or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness — or an agent specially designated in writing for the purposes of section 185 by the Minister or the Attorney General, as the case may be — accompanied by an affidavit of a peace officer or public officer deposing to the following matters:

(a) the reason and period for which the renewal is required,

(b) full particulars, together with times and dates, when interceptions, if any, were made or attempted under the authorization, and any information that has been obtained by any interception, and

(c) the number of instances, if any, on which, to the knowledge and belief of the deponent, an application has been made under this subsection in relation to the same authorization and on which the application was withdrawn or no renewal was given, the date on which each application was made and the name of the judge to whom each application was made,

and supported by such other information as the judge may require.

Renewal

(7) A renewal of an authorization may be given if the judge to whom the application is made is satisfied that any of the circumstances described in subsection (1) [authorization of wiretap – motifs] still obtain, but no renewal shall be for a period exceeding sixty days.

Related warrant or order

(8) A judge who gives an authorization under this section may, at the same time, issue a warrant or make an order under any of sections 487 [mandats de perquisition territoriale], 487.01, 487.014 to 487.018, 487.02, 492.1 and 492.2 if the judge is of the opinion that the requested warrant or order is related to the execution of the authorization.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 186; 1993, c. 40, s. 6; 1997, c. 23, s. 5; 1999, c. 5, s. 5; 2001, c. 32, s. 6, c. 41, ss. 6.1, 133; 2005, c. 10, ss. 23, 34; 2014, c. 17, s. 4, c. 31, s. 9.
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Terms Remain

A renewal of an order must be in the same terms as the initial one.

Review of Authorization

The review of a wiretap is the same standard as a review of any warrant.

The test to be applied on the review of a wiretap warrant is whether there were "reasonable grounds to believe that the interception of communications may assist in the investigation of the offence. It is not a question of whether there is reasonable grounds to lay changes.

An affiant should be not only full and frank but also ‘clear and concise’”

Constitutionality

The standard of "may assist the investigation" as proof is constitutional.

Notice Requirements

Written notification to be given

196 (1) The Attorney General of the province in which an application under subsection 185(1) [conditions requises pour une écoute électronique en vertu de l'article 186] was made or the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness if the application was made by or on behalf of that Minister shall, within 90 days after the period for which the authorization was given or renewed or within such other period as is fixed pursuant to subsection 185(3) [conditions requises pour une écoute téléphonique 186 – motifs de prolongation du délai de préavis ] or subsection (3) [motifs pour accorder une prolongation] of this section, notify in writing the person who was the object of the interception pursuant to the authorization and shall, in a manner prescribed by regulations made by the Governor in Council, certify to the court that gave the authorization that the person has been so notified.

Extension of period for notification

(2) The running of the 90 days referred to in subsection (1) [notification écrite à la cible], or of any other period fixed pursuant to subsection 185(3) [conditions requises pour une écoute téléphonique 186 – motifs de prolongation du délai de préavis ] or subsection (3) [motifs pour accorder une prolongation] of this section, is suspended until any application made by the Attorney General or the Minister to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 for an extension or a subsequent extension of the period for which the authorization was given or renewed has been heard and disposed of.

Where extension to be granted

(3) Where the judge to whom an application referred to in subsection (2) [suspension pendant que la demande de prolongation est en attente] is made, on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of the application, is satisfied that

(a) the investigation of the offence to which the authorization relates, or

(b) a subsequent investigation of an offence listed in section 183 [Partie VI - Atteinte à la vie privée - définitions] commenced as a result of information obtained from the investigation referred to in paragraph (a),

is continuing and is of the opinion that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge shall grant an extension, or a subsequent extension, of the period, each extension not to exceed three years.

Application to be accompanied by affidavit

(4) An application pursuant to subsection (2) [suspension pendant que la demande de prolongation est en attente] shall be accompanied by an affidavit deposing to

(a) the facts known or believed by the deponent and relied on to justify the belief that an extension should be granted; and

(b) the number of instances, if any, on which an application has, to the knowledge or belief of the deponent, been made under that subsection in relation to the particular authorization and on which the application was withdrawn or the application was not granted, the date on which each application was made and the judge to whom each application was made.

Exception for criminal organizations and terrorist groups

(5) Notwithstanding subsections (3) [motifs pour accorder une prolongation] and 185(3) [conditions requises pour une écoute téléphonique 186 – motifs de prolongation du délai de préavis ], where the judge to whom an application referred to in subsection (2) [suspension pendant que la demande de prolongation est en attente] or 185(2) [conditions requises pour une écoute téléphonique 186 – pouvoir de prolonger le délai de préavis] is made, on the basis of an affidavit submitted in support of the application, is satisfied that the investigation is in relation to

(a) an offence under section 467.11 [participation in Activities of Criminal Organization], 467.111 [recrutement de membres par une organisation criminelle], 467.12 [commission of offense for criminal organisation] or 467.13 [ordonner la commission d'une infraction pour organisation criminelle],

(b) an offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization, or

(c) a terrorism offence,

and is of the opinion that the interests of justice warrant the granting of the application, the judge shall grant an extension, or a subsequent extension, of the period, but no extension may exceed three years.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 196; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 28; 1993, c. 40, s. 14; 1997, c. 23, s. 7; 2001, c. 32, s. 8, c. 41, ss. 8, 133; 2005, c. 10, s. 25; 2014, c. 17, s. 6.
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

---

Protection of Privacy Regulations CRC, c. 440, states:

General

2 For the purposes of subsection 178.23(1) [now s. 196(1)] of the Criminal Code, the Attorney General of a province who gave a notice required to be given by that subsection, or the Solicitor General of Canada where the notice was given by him, shall certify to the court that issued the authorization that such notice was given by filing with a judge of the court a certificate signed by the person who gave the notice specifying

(a) the name and address of the person who was the object of the interception;

(b) the date on which the authorization and any renewal thereof expired;

(c) if any delay for the giving of notice was granted under section 178.23 or subsection 178.12(3) of the Criminal Code, the period of such delay; and

(d) the date, place and method of the giving of the notice.

SOR/81-859, s. 1.

[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

– PPR