Tele-Mobile Co. v. Ontario et al.

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.
• Citation: (2008), 372 N.R. 157 (SCC),2008 SCC 12,55 CR (6th) 1,372 NR 157,[2008] SCJ No 12 (QL),EYB 2008-131420,229 CCC (3d) 417,235 OAC 369,[2008] 1 SCR 305,77 WCB (2d) 103,JE 2008-709,291 DLR (4th) 193,92 OR (3d) 478
• Date: 13 December 2007

Tele-Mobile Co. v. Ont. (2008), 372 N.R. 157 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2008] N.R. TBEd. MR.022

Tele-Mobile Company (a.k.a. Telus Mobility) (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (Ontario) and Her Majesty The Queen (Canada) (respondents) and Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of British Columbia, Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police and Canadian Bankers Association (intervenors)

(31644; 2008 SCC 12; 2008 CSC 12)

Indexed As: Tele-Mobile Co. v. Ontario et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ.

March 28, 2008.

Summary:

In 2004 a new investigative tool was introduced into the Criminal Code (i.e., a production order scheme (ss. 487.012 - 487.017)), whereby third parties in possession of information relevant to a criminal investigation could be ordered to produce and generate documents and data for law enforcement agencies). Two police departments obtained production orders under the third party production scheme, requiring Telus Mobility to produce call records related to separate criminal investigations. Telus filed two applications under s. 487.015, seeking exemptions from the two production orders because the financial burden of compliance would be unreasonable without compensation.

The Ontario Court of Justice (Vaillancourt, J.), in a decision reported [2006] O.T.C. 1664; 2006 ONCJ 229 refused the application. Telus appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Canada pursuant to s. 40(1) of the Supreme Court Act, arguing that the Code allowed a judge to add a term respecting compensation to a production order.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 3015

Special powers - Third party production orders - Exemptions (incl. compensation) - Two police departments obtained production orders under the third party production scheme in the Criminal Code (ss. 487.012 - 487.017), requiring Telus Mobility to produce call records related to separate criminal investigations - Telus filed two applications under s. 487.015, seeking exemptions from the two production orders because the financial burden of compliance would be unreasonable without compensation - The applications judge refused the application - Telus appealed, arguing that the Code allowed a judge to add a term respecting compensation to a production order - The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal - The court held that the statutory scheme did not give a judge the power to order that the police compensate a third party for the costs of compliance with production orders - Where the financial costs of compliance were unreasonable the court could grant a full or partial exemption from the production order (s. 487.015(4)(b)) - As to what was "unreasonable", the court rejected an "undue hardship" threshold, holding that the "unreasonableness" standard was one familiar in law - What was reasonable would be informed by a variety of factors - In this case, the court saw no reason for interfering with the applications judge's conclusion that, based on the financial information before him, Telus had not met its onus of satisfying him that the cost of compliance was unreasonable such as to justify an exemption.

Words and Phrases

Unreasonable - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of this word as used in s. 487.015(4)(b) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 61 to 67.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 50].

Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 425; 106 N.R. 161; 39 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 50].

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, refd to. [para. 50].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Pacific International Securities Inc. (2006), 228 B.C.A.C. 99; 376 W.A.C. 99; 209 C.C.C.(3d) 390; 2006 BCCA 303, refd to. [para. 54].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Foster et al. (2006), 217 O.A.C. 173; 215 C.C.C.(3d) 59 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54].

United States of America v. Jones (1972), 351 F. Supp. 132 (M.D. Ala.), refd to. [para. 60].

R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 66].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, refd to. [para. 66].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 487.012, sect. 487.014, sect. 487.015, sect. 487.017 [para. 4].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Department of Justice, Lawful Access: Operational Fees, Discussion Paper (December 12, 2003), pp. 1, 8 [para. 38]; 15 [para. 34]; 33, 34 [para. 39].

Canada, Department of Justice, Industry Canada, Solicitor General Canada, Lawful Access -- Consultation Document (August 25, 2002), p. 6 [para. 35].

Canada, Department of Justice, Industry Canada, Solicitor General Canada, Lawful Access Consultation: Response of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (December 16, 2002), para. 62 [para. 36].

Canada, Department of Justice, News Release, Lawful Access Consultation Submission Summary Report Available on Department of Justice Website (August 6, 2003), generally [para. 35].

Canada, Department of Justice, Summary of Submissions to the Lawful Access Consultation (April 28, 2003), p. 7 [para. 36].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 138, 2nd Sess., 37th Parliament (September 29, 2003), pp. 7933 to 7944 [para. 40].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed. McNaughton Rev. 1961), vol. 8, p. 72; ¶ 2192 [para. 51].

Counsel:

Paul Burstein and Frank Addario, for the appellant;

Randy Schwartz and Joseph Perfetto, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen (Ontario);

Janet Henchey and Robert Frater, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen (Canada);

Brigitte Bussières and Gilles Laporte, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Trevor Shaw and Gordon Comer, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

David Migicovsky and Margaret R. Truesdale, for the intervenor, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police;

Paul J. Martin and Charles A. Toth, for the intervenor, the Canadian Bankers Association.

Solicitors of Record:

Burstein, Unger, Toronto, Ontario; Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen (Ontario);

Department of Justice, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent, Her Majesty the Queen (Canada);

Department of Justice, Quebec, Quebec, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of Quebec;

Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the intervenor, the Attorney General of British Columbia;

Perley-Robertson, Hill & McDougall, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police;

Fasken Martineau DuMoulin, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, the Canadian Bankers Association.

This appeal was heard on December 13, 2007, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, Binnie, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron and Rothstein, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The following decision of the court was delivered in both official languages by Abella, J., on March 28, 2008.