Annual Report on the use of Electronic Surveillance - 2005

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, represented by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2006. All rights reserved.

Paper Version:
Cat. No: PS1-1/2005
ISBN: 0-662-49322-2

As a measure of accountability, section 195 of the Criminal Code requires the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness 1 to prepare and present to Parliament an annual report on the use of electronic surveillance under Part VI for offences that may be prosecuted by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada. In particular, the annual report must include the following information:

• the number of applications made for authorizations, or for renewal of authorizations;
• the number of applications granted with or without terms and conditions, as well as the number of applications that were refused;
• the number of persons identified in an authorization who were charged for various offences;
• the number of persons not identified in an authorization, but who were arrested or charged for various offences because they became known to peace officers 2 as a result of authorized surveillance;
• the average time for which authorizations were issued and for which renewals were granted;
• the number of authorizations valid for more than 60, 120, 180, and 240 days;
• the number of notifications given to people who had private communications intercepted;
• the types of offences for which authorizations were granted;
• a description of the classes of places set out in authorizations, and the number of authorizations granted for each class of place;
• a general description of the methods of interception used;
• the number of proceedings in which intercepted communications were entered as evidence; and
• the number of investigations in which information from intercepted communications was used but the communication itself was not entered as evidence.

The 2005 Annual Report covers a five-year period from 2001 to 2005. The Report includes new statistics for the period of January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, and updates the figures for the years 2001 to 2004.

The 2005 Annual Report is organized in the following manner:

• Section I is the introduction to the report.
• Section II provides an overview of the procedures and processes set out in Part VI of the Criminal Code. Information on section 487.01 of the Criminal Code is also provided as the law enforcement community can obtain authority to conduct video surveillance by applying for a ‘general’ warrant pursuant to this section.
• Section III presents the statistical information that must be included in each annual report pursuant to subsections 195(2) and 195(3) of the Criminal Code.
• Section IV provides a general assessment of the importance of electronic surveillance for the investigation, detection, prevention, and prosecution of offences as required by paragraph 195(3)(b) of the Criminal Code.
• Appendix A provides a list of agents designated by the Minister or Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness who made an application for an authorization under sections 185 and/or 487.01 of the Criminal Code.
• Appendix B lists peace officers designated by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness who made an application for an authorization under sections 188 and/or 487.01 of the Criminal Code.

Peace officers can only obtain this authorization to intercept private communications for certain offences, which are listed in section 183 of the Criminal Code. These offences include serious offences such as facilitating terrorist activity, weapons trafficking, child pornography, child abductions, drug trafficking, and organized crime offences.

Part VI also sets out the requirements that must be met to successfully apply for an authorization to intercept private communications. These requirements include:

• Only the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, or persons specially designated by the Minister or the Deputy Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, may make an application for an authorization with regard to offences that may be prosecuted by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada.
• An application must be accompanied by an affidavit sworn by a peace officer or public officer. The affidavit must include information such as the facts relied on to justify the need for an authorization, details about the offence, and the names and addresses of the persons whose private communications would be intercepted (section 185).
• Before an authorization is issued, the judge hearing the application must be satisfied that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to authorize the electronic surveillance. Except in the case of certain specific offences, such as a terrorism offence, the judge must also be satisfied that other investigative procedures have been tried and failed, that other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed, or that there is an urgency such that other investigative procedures are impractical. The judge may impose terms and conditions on the authorization, including conditions to ensure that the privacy of individuals is respected as much as possible during the surveillance (section 186).

Generally, authorizations are not issued for a period of time longer than 60 days (paragraph 186(4)(e)). However, designated persons may apply to a judge to have the authorization renewed, which extends the period of time during which they can lawfully conduct electronic surveillance. Before the judge may renew the authorization, he or she must be satisfied that the same circumstances that applied to the original application for authorization still apply (subsection 186(6)).

Provisions also exist for designated persons to obtain judicial authorization in emergency situations. Under section 188 of the Criminal Code, a peace officer designated by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness may apply to a judge for an authorization if the urgency of the situation requires interception of private communications, but there is not enough time to use the regular application process to obtain an authorization. An authorization issued in these circumstances may be issued for a period of up to thirty-six hours, and the judge may impose terms and conditions.

In addition to applying for an authorization to intercept private communications under Part VI, peace officers may apply to a judge for a ‘general’ warrant under section 487.01 of the Criminal Code. This section enables the issuance of a warrant for the use of any device or investigative technique that is not contemplated elsewhere in the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament. For example, this type of warrant would allow peace officers to carry out video surveillance of a person in circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. As with other judicial authorizations, certain requirements must be met before a warrant can be issued. In the case of warrants issued pursuant to section 487.01, these requirements include:

• The judge must be satisfied by information provided under oath and in writing (i.e., a sworn affidavit) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been or will be committed, and that information about the offence can be obtained by conducting video surveillance.
• The judge must be satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to issue the warrant.
• There must be no other provision in the Criminal Code or any other Act of Parliament that would provide for a warrant, authorization or order to allow the intended video surveillance to be carried out.
• The judge may also impose terms or conditions on the warrant, including conditions to ensure that the privacy of individuals is respected as much as possible during the surveillance.

Paragraphs 195(2)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code require statistics relating to:

(a) the number of applications made for authorizations;

(b) the number of applications made for renewal of authorizations;

Table 1

Table 1 presents the number of applications made for audio and video authorizations and renewals each year for the five‑year period from 2001 to 2005. The data is categorized by the three types of applications for which authorizations may be granted: audio and video applications (maximum duration sixty days) and renewals thereof pursuant to subsections 185(1), 186(6) and section 487.01 of the Criminal Code and emergency applications (maximum duration 36 hours) pursuant to subsection 188(1) and section 487.01 of the Criminal Code.

Paragraph 195(2)(c) of the Criminal Code requires information relating to:

(c) the number of applications referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) that were granted, the number of those applications that were refused and the number of applications referred to in paragraph (a) that were granted subject to terms and conditions;

Note: two applications for an authorization or a renewal have been refused for the period 2001-2005.

Figure 1

Period for which authorizations and renewals were granted

Paragraph 195(2)(f) of the Criminal Code requires information relating to:

(f) the average period for which authorizations were given and for which renewals thereof were granted;

Table 2

Although authorizations may be valid for a period of up to sixty days, this does not necessarily mean interceptions are made during the entire period. For example, sufficient evidence may be obtained as a result of the authorization to prove the offence and to lay charges prior to the expiration of the authorization.

Paragraph 195(2)(g) of the Criminal Code requires information relating to:

Table 3

The categories in Table 3 are mutually exclusive. For example, an authorization valid for a period of sixty days which was renewed for a further sixty days is counted in the category 61‑120 days, and an authorization of sixty days coupled with three sixty-day renewals would be counted in the 181‑240 category.

Offences specified in authorizations

Paragraph 195(2)(i) of the Criminal Code requires information relating to:

(i) the offences in respect of which authorizations were given, specifying the number of authorizations given in respect of each of those offences;

Table 4

* The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act was brought into force on May 14, 1997 , replacing the Narcotic Control Act and Parts III and IV of the Food and Drugs Act.

**This section was repealed on December 1, 1998, with the implementation of the Firearms Act.

Most authorizations granted to agents of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness provide for the use of electronic surveillance in relation to more than one offence. A typical example of such an authorization would be in relation to sections 5 (trafficking), 6 (importing and exporting), and 7 (production) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and conspiracy under section 465 of the Criminal Code to commit these offences. Table 4 represents the number of times specific offences were identified in authorizations granted to agents of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. For example, of the 152 authorizations granted in 2001, 126 of these authorizations specifically provided for the use of electronic surveillance in connection with trafficking a narcotic, 124 for possession for the purpose of trafficking, etc.

Classes of places and methods of interception

Paragraph 195(2)(j) of the Criminal Code requires information relating to:

(j) a description of all classes of places specified in authorizations and the number of authorizations in which each of those classes of places was specified;

Table 5

Paragraph 195(2)(k) of the Criminal Code requires information relating to:

(k) a general description of the methods of interception involved in each interception under an authorization;

Table 6

It should be noted that the data reported for 2005 will likely rise in future reports as data updates are received.

Legal proceedings, use of intercepted material and disposition

Paragraph 195(2)(l) of the Criminal Code requires information relating to:

(l) the number of persons arrested whose identity became known to a peace officer as a result of an interception under an authorization;

Figure 2

* It should be noted that the data reported for 2005 will likely rise in future reports as data updates are received.

Paragraph 195(2)(d) of the Criminal Code requires information relating to:

(d) the number of persons identified in an authorization against whom proceedings were commenced at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada in respect of:

1. an offence specified in the authorization,
2. an offence other than an offence specified in the authorization but in respect of which an authorization may be given, and
3. an offence in respect of which an authorization may not be given;

Table 7

Paragraph 195(2)(e) of the Criminal Code requires information relating to:

(e) the number of persons not identified in an authorization against whom proceedings were commenced at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada in respect of:

1. an offence specified in such an authorization,
2. an offence other than an offence specified in such an authorization but in respect of which an authorization may be given, and
3. an offence other than an offence specified in such an authorization and for which no such authorization may be given,

and whose commission or alleged commission of the offence became known to a peace officer as a result of an interception of a private communication under an authorization;

Table 8

Tables 7 and 8 contain information relating to the number of persons charged for all types of offences, including Criminal Code offences. Moreover, the three categories of offences are not treated as being mutually exclusive, and persons charged with more than one category of offence are counted more than once. Therefore, one cannot add the columns in Tables 7 and 8 to obtain the total number of persons. It should be noted that the data reported for 2005 will likely rise in future reports as data updates are received.

Paragraph 195(2)(m) of the Criminal Code requires information relating to:

(m) the number of criminal proceedings commenced at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada in which private communications obtained by interception under an authorization were adduced in evidence and the number of those proceedings that resulted in a conviction;

Figure 3

* It should be noted that the data reported for 2004 and 2005 will likely rise in future reports as data updates are received.

Paragraph 195(2)(n) of the Criminal Code requires information relating to:

(n) the number of criminal investigations in which information obtained as a result of the interception of a private communication under an authorization was used although the private communication was not adduced in evidence in criminal proceedings commenced at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada as a result of the investigations.

Figure 4

* It should be noted that the data reported for 2005 will likely rise in future reports as data updates are received.

Notifications

Pursuant to subsection 196(1) of the Criminal Code, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is required to notify in writing the person who was the object of the interception. Furthermore, paragraph 195(2)(h) requires that the Annual Report of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness provide:

(h) the number of notifications given pursuant to section 196.

Figure 5

Notification is served on those persons identified in the authorization who were actually under electronic surveillance. There is therefore a significant difference between the number of persons named in authorizations and the number of persons notified. Another factor which contributes to this difference is that notification may be delayed for up to three years if the investigation is in relation to a criminal organization and is continuing.

Prosecutions for unlawful interceptions and unlawful disclosure

Paragraph 195(3)(a) of the Criminal Code requires that the Annual Report provide information relating to:

(a) the number of prosecutions commenced against officers or servants of Her Majesty in right of Canada or members of the Canadian Forces for offences under section 184 or section 193;

No such prosecutions have been initiated for the period from 2001 to 2005.

(b) a general assessment of the importance of interception of private communications for the investigation, detection, prevention and prosecution of offences in Canada.

Investigation

The lawful interception of private communications is a vital tool used by law enforcement agencies. It is of great assistance to complex criminal investigations involving threats to national security and serious crimes. The statistics presented in Section III of this report indicate that the majority of authorizations issued are in relation to the offence of trafficking in a controlled substance.

Detection

The illegal activities of organized criminal groups and terrorist activity just to name a few, would remain largely undetected were it not for the active investigation of the police. Offences such as money laundering, smuggling, drug trafficking or participation in the activity of a terrorist group, present serious threats to the safety and stability of Canadian communities, and the lawful interception of private communications provides a means for the police to detect, and consequently investigate, the commission of such offences.

Prevention

The use of electronic surveillance in investigations has led to numerous drug seizures, leading to a reduction in the amount of illicit drugs and crime associated with their abuse. Without this crucial tool, the ability of the law enforcement community to prevent crimes and ensuing social harm would be seriously hindered.

Prosecution

Investigations of the activities of organized crime groups are increasingly complex and sometimes difficult to prove in a court of law. The use of electronic surveillance often provides strong evidence against those accused of being involved in illegal activities, increasing the likelihood of conviction. The prosecution of such offenders increases public confidence in the criminal justice system and contributes to public safety by holding such persons responsible for their actions.

Case example

In April 2005, the Toronto Police Service and the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit charged four men with numerous serious offences, including Conspiracy to Commit Murder, Attempted Murder, and firearms-related crimes. These charges stemmed from an incident in which an innocent bystander was shot while making a purchase from a North York sandwich store.

Information about this shooting was derived from an organized crime investigation that used audio and video surveillance.

Police allege that the shooting was linked to a dispute between one of the suspects and other organized crime figures during which the suspect ordered the murder of some of his associates. Police further allege that it was during the attempt to carry out the suspect’s order by the other three suspects that the victim was hit by stray bullets causing extremely serious injuries, including paralysis.

These types of cases exemplify the ongoing cooperation that exists on a daily basis between all levels of law enforcement. Due to the nature of this crime and the concern for public safety, the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit made investigating the shooting a priority and directed all of its efforts to working with the Toronto Police Service.