Sheldon Steeves

The appellant was charged with child luring after sending sexually explicit online communications to an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl.

The police used screen capture software to record the communications without prior judicial authorization.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, though for different reasons: the majority (Brown J., Abella and Gascon JJ. concurring) held that the appellant had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy because he communicated with someone he believed to be a child who was a stranger; Karakatsanis J. (Wagner C.J. concurring) held there was no search or seizure because the police simply received messages directed to them; Moldaver J. concurred in the result; and Martin J. dissented in part, finding a s. 8 breach but agreeing that exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) was not warranted.

Criminal appeal concerning whether a trial judge erred after a witness refused to answer a defence question and was not immediately cited for contempt.

The appellate court had ordered a new trial after finding error in the handling of the refusal.

The court held the trial judge acted within discretion in proceeding with the main trial and deferring any potential contempt issue.

In any event, any assumed error caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice under the curative proviso.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were restored.