The accused brought Charter motions challenging a police investigation that began after a minor’s parents reported suspected sexual activity for money with an older man.
Police seized and later forensically searched the complainant’s phone with her consent, obtaining text messages that led to production orders for ride-share records, identification of the accused, and a search warrant for his residence and devices.
The court held that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the electronic conversation stored on the complainant’s phone and that the warrantless forensic search was not authorized by law despite the complainant’s consent.
Applying the Grant framework, the court found multiple serious Charter breaches, including an overbroad production order that captured thousands of unrelated messages and solicitor-client communications.
The text messages and all derivative evidence, including production order results and identification evidence, were excluded under s. 24(2).
The request for a stay of proceedings was dismissed because the misconduct, while serious, did not meet the “clearest of cases” threshold.
