Canada Case Law

R v Corporong

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court held that although there was an uninformed and therefore invalid consent to an on‑scene cursory viewing of the tablet (s.8 breach), the breach was of limited seriousness, the tablet had been voluntarily handed over, reasonable and probable grounds to arrest existed prior to viewing, the warrants (July 8 and August 11, 2022 ITOs) were valid after appropriate excisions and amplification, the forensic analyst’s discovery and reporting of items outside the date range did not amount to an unlawful sharing or warrantless search, and under the Grant balancing the tablet data and related ev…

Source excerpt

• S.8 unreasonable search and seizure
• S.9 arbitrary detention/imprisonment
• S.10(b) right to counsel on arrest or detention
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Voluntariness of statements
• Warrant validity

Read case analysis

R. v. Ross

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Cellebrite extractions were admissible and, when tested against extensive extrinsic corroborative evidence (device activity gaps and unlock timestamps, GPS coordinates resolving to the accused's residence, Facebook and banking data, seizure circumstances, photos matching residence), the court accepted the reports without expert opinion; on that basis identity, jurisdiction and temporal elements were proven and the Crown established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed, accessed, transmitted/made available CSAEM and engaged in grooming/luring conduct, warranting convictions…

Source excerpt

• Child sexual abuse and exploitation material (csaem)
• Luring
• Making available/distribution
• Possession and accessing
• Authentication of electronic evidence
• Cellebrite extraction

Read case analysis

R. v. Ross

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The Crown met the s.31.1 CEA authentication threshold because there was evidence capable of supporting a finding that the Cellebrite Reports are copies of what was on the seized Devices: no evidence undermined the operation of the Devices or the Cellebrite tools (s.31.3(a)), and substantial extrinsic corroboration of device activity reinforced authenticity. The witnesses provided admissible factual evidence of the extraction and report generation; expert qualification was unnecessary for those factual descriptions, so the reports are admissible and their weight is for trial.

Source excerpt

• Authentication of electronic evidence
• Canada evidence act s.31.1-31.3
• Cellebrite extraction
• Admissibility of electronic documents
• Expert evidence vs lay testimony

Read case analysis

Further Detention of Things Seized (Re)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted further detention under ss. 490(9.1) and 490(3) until January 21, 2027 because the Seized Items and copied electronic data are objectively reasonably required for an ongoing complex investigation involving digital forensic processing, analyst review for CSAEM, firearms and counterfeit investigations and expert reports; the investigation's complexity and the interests of justice (including protection of a minor complainant and ensuring proper investigation and potential trial evidence) outweigh the Interested Party's property and privacy interests, and a sealing order under s…

Source excerpt

• Further detention of seized property
• Sealing order
• Digital evidence extraction and review
• Complexity of investigation
• Child sexual exploitation offences

Read case analysis

R. v. Kelleher

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court acquitted the accused on two child pornography counts, finding the Crown did not prove knowledge or prohibited purpose beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Possession of child pornography
• Knowledge element
• Purpose for possession (s.163.1(3))
• Circumstantial evidence
• Digital evidence/metadata
• Admissions under s.655

Read case analysis

R. v. Holmes

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Court found the accused's verbal confession to Cpl. Downey was involuntary and therefore breached s.7, but rejected defence challenges under s.10(b) and s.8 (warrants were facially valid and execution reasonable) and held s.489.1 did not require a second report after data extraction; balancing under s.24(2) led to admission of the impugned phone/cloud evidence because police conduct was at the low end of seriousness, discoverability reduced impact on Charter interests, and the evidence was critical and reliable.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of confession
• Charter s.7 - right to silence
• Charter s.10(b) - right to counsel
• Charter s.8 - unreasonable search and seizure
• S.24(2) exclusionary analysis
• General warrants s.487.01

Read case analysis

R. v. Wiwchar

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court granted the Crown’s Haevischer motion and summarily dismissed Wiwchar’s abuse of process application, finding it manifestly frivolous.

• Abuse of process
• Summary dismissal (manifestly frivolous)
• Reasonable expectation of privacy
• Surveillance cctv
• Pgp/encryption
• Case management

Read case analysis

Further Detention of Things Seized (Re)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a Crown application to further detain a seized cellphone, finding the investigation was not shown to be complex and the delays were unexplained.

• Detention of seized property
• S.490 criminal code
• S.487.3 sealing orders
• Complexity of investigation
• Digital forensic services delays
• Criminal-code-s-490

Read case analysis

R. v. Monteith

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a Charter application to exclude Nokia phone data, finding the missing Form 5.2 reports breached s. 8 but did not justify exclusion under s. 24(2).

• Section 489.1 form 5.2 returns
• Section 24(2) charter exclusion
• Cell phone data extraction
• Judicial oversight of seized property
• Precedent: teixeira, craig, tim
• Charter-section-24-2

Read case analysis

R. v. Wallis

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a conviction for possessing child pornography, holding the phone was lawfully seized and the trial judge did not shift the burden of proof.

• Search and seizure (s.8 charter)
• Admissibility of digital evidence
• Possession elements (knowledge and control)
• Burden of proof and onus
• Credibility and reliability findings
• Plain view doctrine

Read case analysis