The appellant was convicted of fraud-related offences after police obtained his IP addresses from a third-party payment processor without judicial authorization, then used a production order to compel the ISP to disclose subscriber information, and subsequently executed search warrants on residential premises.
The majority held that an IP address attracts a reasonable expectation of privacy under s. 8 of the Charter because it is the crucial link between an Internet user and their online activity, capable of revealing biographical core information with or without a Spencer warrant.
The dissent held that IP addresses alone reveal only the user's ISP, not biographical core information, and that the police acted properly by obtaining a production order consistent with R. v. Spencer before accessing subscriber information.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
