R. v. Weir (D.T.), (1998) 213 A.R. 285 (QB)

• Judge: P.L.J. Smith, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 10, 1998
• Citations: (1998), 213 A.R. 285 (QB)

R. v. Weir (D.T.) (1998), 213 A.R. 285 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. FE.057

Her Majesty The Queen v. Dale T. Weir (accused)

(Action No. 9703 0841C.1)

Indexed As: R. v. Weir (D.T.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

P.L.J. Smith, J.

February 10, 1998.

Summary:

Supernet, an internet provider, discovered an e-mail message containing attachments believed to be child pornography while repairing the accused's mailbox. Supernet informed the police. At the request of the police, Supernet copied the e-mail message and attachments for the police. The police obtained a search warrant for the accused's home and seized a computer and diskettes containing child pornography. The accused was charged with possession of child por­nography contrary to s. 163.1 of the Crimi­nal Code. The accused sought to exclude the evidence seized from his home, alleging a breach of his ss. 7 and 8 Charter rights.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ad­mitted the evidence. The court convicted the accused.

Civil Rights - Topic 1373

Security of the person - Police surveil­lance - Interception of private communi­cations - Electronic mail - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that e-mail held by a internet service provider carried a reason­able expectation of privacy - Therefore, judicial pre-authorization would usually be required to search and seize it - The court stated that the current Criminal Code and Charter of Rights protections were adequate when applied to the e-mail envi­ronment - See paragraphs 56 to 77.

Civil Rights - Topic 1444

Security of the person - Right to privacy - Expectation of privacy - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1373 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expecta­tion of privacy - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1373 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1601

Property - Search warrants - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 3045 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1644

Property - Search and seizure - Seizure - Defined - Supernet, an internet provider, discovered an e-mail message containing attachments believed to be child pornogra­phy while repairing the accused's mailbox - Supernet informed the police - At the request of the police, Supernet copied the e-mail message and attachments for the police - The police then obtained a search warrant - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the copying of the e-mail by Supernet for the police was not a seiz­ure - Supernet had already formed the belief that the e-mail contained child por­nography and passed that belief onto the police - The copied e-mail was not necess­ary to give police reasonable and probable grounds - It was corroboration as to the detail and texture of Supernet's tip - See paragraph 54.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Supernet, an internet pro­vider, discovered an e-mail message con­taining attachments believed to be child pornography while repairing the accused's mailbox - Supernet informed the police - At the request of the police, Supernet copied the e-mail message and attach­ments for the police - The police obtained a search warrant for the accused's home and seized a computer and diskettes con­taining child pornography - The accused sought to exclude the evidence (Charter, s. 24(2)) because the police conducted a warrantless search by taking a copy of the e-mail message - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that, assuming without deter­mining that there was a warrantless search, the evidence should be admitted - It was not conscripted evidence and its exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 112 to 115.

Criminal Law - Topic 573.2

Public morals - Obscenity - Child por­nography defined - Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code defined child pornography as "a photographic, film, video or other visual representation" - The police seized a computer and diskettes containing child pornography from the accused's home - The accused was charged with possession of child pornography - The accused argued, inter alia, that data in a computer did not come within the definition of child pornography - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that when child por­nography is generated by a computer, "other visual representation" applied - Therefore, the definition of child pornography in the context of computer crime was electronically generated visual representations - See paragraphs 130 to 131.

Criminal Law - Topic 575.1

Public morals - Obscenity - Possession of child pornography - The police seized a computer and diskettes containing child pornography from the accused's home - The accused was charged with possession of child pornography contrary to s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code - The accused argued, inter alia, that the Crown failed to prove subjective knowledge - The accused claimed that because he was not viewing the child pornography upon his arrest there was no visual representation - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[t]he visual representation possessed by the offender is the necessary element of the charge" - To have possession the accused had to have control and knowledge - How­ever, the court held that there was suffi­cient evidence to find that the accused had knowledge that he was dealing with child pornography - See paragraphs 132 to 135.

Criminal Law - Topic 3045

Special powers - Search warrants - Scope of - The police received a tip that the accused was receiving e-mail containing child pornography - The police then obtained a search warrant under s. 487 of the Criminal Code (ss. 487(2.1) and 487(2.2) were added after the issuance of the warrant) to search the accused's home - The police seized a computer and disk­ettes and then extracted the information - The accused alleged that the search war­rant was unlawful because: 1) s. 487 did not authorize the seizure of data inside com­puter systems; 2) electronic data was intan­gible and therefore could not be seized; and 3) since the warrant was restricted to "things", the data in electronic form fell outside the warrant - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the arguments - See paragraphs 79 to 91.

Criminal Law - Topic 5295.5

Evidence and witnesses - Admissibility of private communications - Admissible interceptions - Electronic mail - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Crown - Topic 26

General principles - Definitions - What constitutes an agent or servant of the Crown - Supernet, an internet provider, discovered an e-mail message containing attachments believed to be child pornogra­phy while repairing the accused's mailbox - Supernet informed the police - At the request of the police, Supernet copied the e-mail message and attachments for the police - The accused claimed that Super­net was an agent of the Crown because by delivering mail, Supernet was perform­ing a governmental function - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that Supernet was not performing a government function and therefore was not a Crown agent - Internet service providers were private organizations and were unregulated - See paragraphs 43 to 50.

Words and Phrases

Child pornography - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the meaning of "child pornography" as used in s. 163.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 130 to 131.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 308, refd to. [paras. 1, 50].

R. v. Donaldson (1990), 58 C.C.C.(3d) 294 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Sismey (1990), 55 C.C.C.(3d) 281 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Doliente (I.B.) (1996), 184 A.R. 131; 122 W.A.C. 131; 108 C.C.C.(3d) 137 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97, refd to. [paras. 1, 106].

R. v. Conrad et al. (1989), 99 A.R. 197; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 311 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Yorke (1992), 115 N.S.R.(2d) 426; 314 A.P.R. 426; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 529 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Fegan (J.J.) (1993), 62 O.A.C. 146; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 356 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Power (E.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 601; 165 N.R. 241; 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 365 A.P.R. 269; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.) (1997), 96 O.A.C. 372; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 310 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 1, 2, 123].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 80 C.R.(3d) 317; 50 C.R.R. 206, refd to. [paras. 1, 102].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [paras. 1, 107].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173, refd to. [paras. 1, 108].

R. v. Blinch (R.J.) (1993), 31 B.C.A.C. 131; 50 W.A.C. 131; 83 C.C.C.(3d) 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [paras. 1, 2, 117].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.) (1997), 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 1, 2].

R. v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Zaharia (1987), 18 O.A.C. 321; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Fleet Aerospace Corp. (1985), 19 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 2].

Société Radio-Canada v. Lessard (juge), Québec Procureur général et autres, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 421; 130 N.R. 321; 43 Q.A.C. 161; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 517, appld. [para. 2].

Descôteaux et Centre Communautaire Juridique de Montreal v. Mierzwinski et al., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 860; 44 N.R. 462; 70 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Sanchez (1994), 93 C.C.C.(3d) 357 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Wiley (R.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 263; 158 N.R. 321; 34 B.C.A.C. 135; 56 W.A.C. 135; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [paras. 2, 108].

R. v. Lerke (1986), 67 A.R. 390; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 2, 43].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244, refd to. [paras. 2, 108].

Procureur général du Quebec v. Banque Royale du Canada and Bourque et al. (1985), 59 N.R. 239; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 98 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 2, 82].

R. v. Young (1984), 3 O.A.C. 254; 13 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Jewitt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 128; 61 N.R. 159; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 7, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Mack, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 903; 90 N.R. 173; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 513, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207, refd to. [paras. 2, 108].

R. v. Matthiesson (C.B.), [1996] 9 W.W.R. 739; 188 A.R. 321 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 2, 123].

R. v. Dersch (W.W.) et al., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 768; 158 N.R. 375; 33 B.C.A.C. 269; 54 W.A.C. 269; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Poirier (1997), 116 C.C.C.(3d) 551 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

R. v. Young (M.R.) (1997), 101 O.A.C. 81; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 350 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

United States v. Maxwell (1995), 42 M.J. 568 (A.F. Ct. Crim. App.), folld. [paras. 3, 69].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 28]; sect. 8 [para. 29]; sect. 24 [para. 30].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 163.1(4) [para. 26]; sect. 184 [para. 31]; sect. 193(1), sect. 193(2)(e) [para. 32]; sect. 487(1), sect. 487(2.1), sect. 487(2.2) [para. 27].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fontana, James A., The Law of Search & Seizure in Canada (4th ed.), c. 23, pp. 46-53 [para. 2].

Megan, Connor, Berton, Home is Where Your Modem Is: An Appropriate Appli­cation of Search and Seizure Law to Electronic Mail (1996), 34 AM. C. L. Rev. 163, generally [para. 3], pp. 182 [para. 62]; 185 [para. 64].

Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Ed. 1989), generally [paras. 3, 85].

Counsel:

Gregory Lepp, for the Attorney General of Alberta;

Sid M. Tarrabain and Walter Raponi (Tarrabain & Co.), for the accused.

This matter was heard before P.L.J. Smith, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on February 10, 1998.