# data[].attributes.headline
Canadian Charter – Section 8: Search and Seizure

# data[].attributes.subject
Canadian Charter – Section 8: Search and Seizure

# data[].attributes.body
Title: What Is Unreasonable Search And Seizure Under The Charter?
Link: https://youtu.be/tGR-hPKrc2c

Description:

This video describes the means with which unreasonable search and seizure is guarded by Section 8 of the Canadian Charter. A search is deemed unreasonable when conducted without a legally mandated warrant e.g. a judge issued warrant. I acquired the knowledge of exceptions such as consent and emergencies, and the privacy expectations of courts. The material assisted me in realizing that unlawful searches might lead to blocked evidence. This becomes relevant in day to day living and subsequent careers in matters of rights, justice or privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms – Section 8
Link: https://youtu.be/2Hwr8BOBsKw?si=bj37-zdmat-70MqM

Description:

This video gives an acted-out scenario in which police may go against Section 8 of the Canadian Charter by entering homes and possessions without a warrant. It notes that any lawful search must be legal and must be conducted with a warrant by a judge. I discovered that a person should not search your home and bags even if he is an officer because he cannot do it legally without any reasonable cause. The video enabled me to realize the daily relevance of search and seizure laws and how charter safeguards Canadians against unwarranted invasion by the state.

Source: Steven Luk (2016) YouTube

# data[].attributes.headline
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy – Charter Rights in Practice

# data[].attributes.subject
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy – Charter Rights in Practice

# data[].attributes.body
Title: What is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in Canadian law?
Link: https://youtu.be/nbGByFwBCsM?si=KrnlQitSCYxDorcR

Description:

This video by a privacy lawyer, David Fraser, simplifies the complicated notion of the reasonable expectation of privacy in Canadian law. It uses such real cases as R v Cole and R v Jarvis to demonstrate the way courts explain whether the police or anyone exceeded Section 8 of the Charter. I discovered that the situation is neither black nor white, and although employers might have access to some devices, a warrant is still required when approached by the police. This is essential to comprehend in life and future employment that has to do with privacy, technology, or law enforcement.

Source: PrivacyLawyer – David Fraser (2021) YouTube

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Adapting Section 8 Protections to the Digital Age

Link: https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/appeal24&section=7

Description:

This paper examines how Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has to be revised according to new technologies. Trombley is saying that digital devices that include highly sensitive personal information require heavier legal protection. As much as there has been an expansion of the right to privacy by courts, the case like R v Fearon creates doubt concerning warrantless searches on telephones. The article concludes that jurisprudence should move on further to safeguard the digital privacy of all Canadians, considering the new surveillance technologies and changing reasonable expectations of privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: The Application of Section 8 to National Security Searches

Link: https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/15185b9e-9dc6-4bb2-b05a-840b46eda809/content

Description:

Mylene Bouzigon discusses the application of the Section 8 in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to searches aimed at serving national security interests in this dissertation. The paper addresses the changes that occur in privacy expectations in cases of intelligence and examines the rulings made by the Supreme Court that transformed searches to constitute reasonableness. It reveals the conflict between civil freedom and national security and incurs worries of the growing might of the state. The present work presents a useful experience regarding the application of Section 8 protection in context other than those meeting common law enforcement standards.

# data[].attributes.headline
Section 8, Technology, and Evolving Privacy Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
Section 8, Technology, and Evolving Privacy Standards

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Reasonable Expectations of Privacy in an Era of Drones and Deepfakes: Expanding the Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in Jarvis

Link: https://www.academia.edu/download/83338545/pdf.pdf

Description:

This paper examines that emerging technologies such as drones and deepfakes present problems to current understanding of privacy in Section 8 of the Canadian Charter. By increasing the level of intrusion of technology, Jarvis urges the courts to be more aggressive in applying the standard of reasonable expectation of privacy, in order to ensure citizens do not succumb to unnecessary state and non-state surveillance. Using the Supreme Court's R. v Jarvis case as a foundation, the article expands on how future rulings should evolve in a digital age.

# data[].attributes.headline
Section 8 and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Public Spaces

# data[].attributes.subject
Section 8 and Reasonable Expectation of Privacy in Public Spaces

# data[].attributes.body
Title: R. v. Jarvis (2019 SCC 10)
Link: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc10/2019scc10.html

The case is a basis and landmark in the Supreme Court of Canada on the definition of a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in Section 8. The Court decided that a reasonable expectation of privacy can be preserved even in public or semi-public places of gathering, such as schools, when surveillance is both covert and focused. Here, a female student was recorded in a hidden camera by a teacher. The Court held that such an action was a breach of the privacy rights of the students. The ruling has played a crucial part in the manner in which courts have chosen to interpret the issue of privacy in the digital age, particularly in regard to emerging technologies and state surveillance.