Marginal note:Applications to specially appointed judges
188 (1) Notwithstanding section 185, an application made under that section for an authorization may be made ex parte to a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction, or a judge as defined in section 552, designated from time to time by the Chief Justice, by a peace officer specially designated in writing, by name or otherwise, for the purposes of this section by
(a) the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, if the offence is one in respect of which proceedings, if any, may be instituted by the Government of Canada and conducted by or on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, or
(b) the Attorney General of a province, in respect of any other offence in the province,
if the urgency of the situation requires interception of private communications to commence before an authorization could, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under section 186.
Marginal note:Authorizations in emergency
(2) Where the judge to whom an application is made pursuant to subsection (1) is satisfied that the urgency of the situation requires that interception of private communications commence before an authorization could, with reasonable diligence, be obtained under section 186, he may, on such terms and conditions, if any, as he considers advisable, give an authorization in writing for a period of up to thirty-six hours.
(3) [Repealed, 1993, c. 40, s. 8]
Definition of Chief Justice
(4) In this section, Chief Justice means
(a) in the Province of Ontario, the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court;
(b) in the Province of Quebec, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court;
(c) in the Provinces of Nova Scotia, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court;
(d) in the Provinces of New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Chief Justice of the Court of Queen’s Bench;
(e) in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Trial Division; and
Marginal note:Inadmissibility of evidence
(5) The trial judge may deem inadmissible the evidence obtained by means of an interception of a private communication pursuant to a subsequent authorization given under this section, where he finds that the application for the subsequent authorization was based on the same facts, and involved the interception of the private communications of the same person or persons, or related to the same offence, on which the application for the original authorization was based.
- R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 188;
- R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 25, 185(F), c. 27 (2nd Supp.), s. 10;
- 1990, c. 17, s. 10;
- 1992, c. 1, s. 58, c. 51, s. 35;
- 1993, c. 40, s. 8;
- 1999, c. 3, s. 28;
- 2002, c. 7, s. 140;
- 2005, c. 10, s. 34;
- 2015, c. 3, s. 47.
- Date modified: