Criminal Code of Canada - section 196(2) - Extension of period for notification

section 196(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

The running of the time limit for an authorization is suspended until any application for extension is heard and disposed of.

SECTION WORDING

196(2) The running of the 90 days referred to in subsection (1), or of any other period fixed pursuant to subsection 185(3) or subsection (3) 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.

EXPLANATION

Section 196(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that outlines the rules regarding the authorized interception of private communications. The section deals with the timeline of the authorization period, and how it can be extended beyond its initial duration. Subsection (1) of the section specifies that a court may issue an authorization to intercept private communications for up to 90 days, upon application by the Attorney General or Minister. However, subsection (2) clarifies that the running of the 90-day period is suspended if any application is made by the Attorney General or the Minister for an extension of the authorization. This means that if the Attorney General or Minister makes an application to a superior court or a judge to extend the authorization period, the 90 days will not run during the pendency of such an application. Once the application has been heard and disposed of, the 90-day period will continue to run from the date of the original authorization. It is important to note that this section also applies to any other period fixed pursuant to subsection 185(3) or subsection (3) of this section. Subsection 185(3) deals with the authorization period in cases of emergency situations," while subsection (3) of section 196 contains provisions relating to the cancellation of authorizations. Overall, this section is crucial in ensuring that the authorized interception of private communications is conducted within the limits prescribed by law. It provides a framework for renewing or extending an authorization beyond its initial duration, while also ensuring that the authorization does not become an indefinite violation of privacy rights.

COMMENTARY

Section 196(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that deals with the surveillance and interception of communications by law enforcement agencies. It states that the running of the 90 days referred to in subsection (1) or any other period fixed pursuant to subsection 185(3) or subsection (3) 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. Essentially, this provision means that the time limit for the authorization of communications surveillance is put on hold while the request for an extension of that authorization is being considered by a judge. This is an important safeguard against the abuse of surveillance powers by law enforcement agencies, as it ensures that any extension of surveillance must be authorized by a judge after considering the facts and the legal requirements. The provision is specifically designed to prevent abuses of surveillance powers, such as the situation where a law enforcement agency obtains an initial authorization for a limited period of surveillance and then continually seeks extensions of that authorization, effectively allowing them to conduct surveillance indefinitely. By requiring that any request for extension be heard and disposed of before the time limit for the authorization starts running again, the provision ensures that there is judicial oversight of the surveillance and that the time limit is not bypassed through the repeated grant of extensions. Moreover, the provision ensures that the right to privacy is protected, and that the surveillance powers of law enforcement agencies are not absolute. It recognizes that the use of surveillance must be balanced against the rights and freedoms of individuals, and that any surveillance must be necessary and proportionate to the objective being pursued. The provision also reinforces the importance of judicial oversight of surveillance activities. By requiring that any request for an extension of authorization be considered by a judge, the provision ensures that the surveillance powers of law enforcement agencies are subject to the oversight of an independent and impartial adjudicator. This is critical to maintaining the public's confidence in the use of surveillance and ensuring that these powers are not abused. Finally, this provision also underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in the use of surveillance powers. By requiring that any request for an extension of authorization be heard and disposed of by a judge, the provision ensures that the use of surveillance is subject to scrutiny and review. This is essential for ensuring that surveillance powers are used in a manner that is consistent with the rule of law, and that any abuses or excesses are identified and addressed. In conclusion, the provisions of Section 196(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada are an important safeguard against the abuse of surveillance powers by law enforcement agencies. They ensure that any extension of surveillance must be authorized by a judge, after considering the facts and legal requirements, and that the right to privacy is protected. The provision also reinforces the importance of judicial oversight, transparency, and accountability in the use of surveillance powers. Overall, Section 196(2) is an essential element of a legal framework for surveillance that balances the needs of law enforcement agencies with the rights and freedoms of individuals.

STRATEGY

Section 196(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial provision when it comes to dealing with electronic surveillance. It allows for an extension or renewed authorization for interception, monitoring, and recording of private communications to allow law enforcement agencies to investigate and prevent criminal activities. The provision dictates that the running of the authorized period is suspended until an application for extension or subsequent renewals has been heard and disposed of by a judge. The provision raises strategic considerations for both the prosecution and defence. The prosecution's strategy when dealing with the section may involve applying for an extension of the initial period authorized by the court. The extension must be justified by the necessity of continued surveillance for the prevention and investigation of criminal activities. It may be an uphill task for the prosecution to convince the court of the need for an extension, especially if the initial evidence collected does not provide a compelling reason. The application for extension extends the authorized period, meaning that the accused's rights for privacy and liberty are compromised for an extended period. It is therefore crucial for the prosecution to rely on sound evidence and demonstrate that no other means of collecting evidence exists apart from electronic surveillance. The defence's strategy when dealing with the section of the Criminal Code of Canada may involve challenging the evidence gathered through electronic surveillance. The defence counsel may argue that the interception or monitoring of private communications was unconstitutional and violated their client's rights. They can also argue that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof concerning the need for an extension. The defence counsel may also argue that the prosecution could have gathered evidence by alternative lawful means. Therefore, it is important for defence counsel to examine the evidence collected through electronic surveillance and challenge its admissibility in court. Another strategy for both the prosecution and defence can involve preparing evidence to support or challenge an application for extension. The prosecution can prepare evidence to support their application for an extension, which may include demonstrating the ongoing criminal activities, the significance of electronic surveillance, and any risks that may arise if the surveillance period ends without completing the investigation. The defence may prepare evidence to challenge the need for an extension, such as demonstrating that the surveillance period has been unnecessarily prolonged, that the initial authorization was granted on insufficient grounds, or that the evidence gathered is no longer relevant or reliable. In conclusion, section 196(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision when it comes to electronic surveillance, and its interpretation can have significant implications for both the prosecution and defence. The provision raises strategic considerations for both parties when dealing with applications for extensions or subsequent renewals, which can impact an accused's constitutional rights. Both the prosecution and defence must be strategic and well-prepared when dealing with this provision to ensure that their arguments are sound, and justice is served.