ARTICLE
11 November 2020

R. V. Canfield: Customs Act Provision Struck Down On Charter Grounds

MT
Miller Thomson LLP

Contributor

Miller Thomson LLP (“Miller Thomson”) is a national business law firm with approximately 525 lawyers working from 10 offices across Canada. The firm offers a complete range of business law and advocacy services. Miller Thomson works regularly with in-house legal departments and external counsel worldwide to facilitate cross-border and multinational transactions and business needs. Miller Thomson offices are located in Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, Saskatoon, London, Waterloo Region, Toronto, Vaughan and Montréal.
In R. v. Canfield, 2020 ABCA 383, the Alberta Court of Appeal considered the constitutionality of paragraph 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act (Canada) (the "Act").
Canada Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In R. v. Canfield, 2020 ABCA 383, the Alberta Court of Appeal considered the constitutionality of paragraph 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act (Canada) (the "Act"). Mr. Canfield and Mr. Townsend, who are both Canadian citizens, arrived at the Edmonton International Airport from outside of Canada. After questioning, the Canada Border Services Agency (the "CBSA") performed a search of their respective electronic devices, which revealed photographs and videos containing child pornography. Mr. Canfield and Mr. Townsend were arrested.

At trial, Mr. Canfield and Mr. Townsend were convicted of possession of child pornography. On appeal, counsel for Mr. Canfield and Mr. Townsend argued, among other things, that paragraph 99(1)(a) of the Act was unconstitutional, as it permitted unlimited searches of electronic devices at the border. Under paragraph 99(1)(a) of the Act, CBSA officers are permitted to examine goods that have been brought into Canada. Based on a Supreme Court of Canada case from 1988, this provision has been interpreted to allow CBSA officers to search personal electronic devices without restriction.

Based on the fact that there have been significant developments in the law respecting electronic devices over the past 30 years, the Alberta Court of Appeal revisited the issue. Ultimately, the Court found that paragraph 99(1)(a) of the Act was unconstitutional to the extent that it imposed no limits on the searches of electronic devices at the border. The Court held that the validity of paragraph 99(1)(a) would be of no force and effect for a period of one year insofar as it allowed for the unrestricted search of electronic devices. This one-year period was provided to allow Parliament the opportunity to amend the Act.

Note: The convictions of Mr. Canfield and Mr. Townsend were nonetheless upheld based on the Court's finding that society's confidence in the justice system was best maintained through the admission of the evidence obtained through the unconstitutional searches.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More