Welcome to Cases That Should Have Gone to the Supreme Court of Canada, But Didn’t! This week, lawyer Kyla Lee discusses self-incrimination and an individual’s personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada.
Acumen Law Corporation lawyer Kyla Lee gives her take on a made-in-Canada court case each week, and discusses why these cases should have been heard by Canada’s highest court: the Supreme Court of Canada.
Eric Talbot’s cellphone was seized by the RCMP through the course of an investigation. The RCMP applied to the court for a warrant to unlock the cellphone, but also for an order requiring Mr. Talbot to assist the police by giving them him swipe pattern password to unlock the cellphone. The court granted the warrant but they refused to grant the order requiring Mr. Talbot to assist the police in their investigation. The matter went to court and Mr. Talbot was successful in opposing the application through all stages of court. The Crown appealed arguing that the individuals have an obligation to assist police by providing their swipe patterns to unlock phones, and that it would essentially render police investigations incredibly difficult if people weren’t assisting the police in this way.
The court of appeal found that the principle against self-incrimination protected a person’s swipe pattern or password meaning that Mr. Talbot was not under any obligation to assist police in their investigation.
The Supreme Court of Canada had the opportunity here to set a consistent standard across Canada that police could understand and that technology could understand so that they could work together to create a system that is effective and fair for all parties involved. Instead however, the Supreme Court of Canada left the door open for more cases similar to that of Mr. Talbot’s to potentially arise in the future.
Watch the video for more.
See more: