section 164.3(5)


This section allows a person or the Attorney General to appeal an order made under subsection (4) to the court of appeal, with modified procedures under Part XXI.


164.3(5) A person referred to in subsection (4) or the Attorney General may appeal to the court of appeal against an order made under that subsection. Part XXI applies, with any modifications that the circumstances require, with respect to the procedure for an appeal under this subsection.


Section 164.3(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that relates to appeals of orders made under subsection (4) of section 164.3 of the Code. Subsection (4) allows a court to issue an order authorizing a person to intercept private communications for the purpose of preventing or investigating a terrorism offence or other serious offences. The order must be made on an application by a peace officer or public officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that the interception is necessary. Subsection (5) provides that any person who is the subject of an order made under subsection (4), or the Attorney General, may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order. Part XXI of the Criminal Code, which pertains to appeals, applies with any necessary modifications to appeals made under this subsection. The purpose of this provision is to provide an avenue for individuals who are adversely affected by an order authorizing the interception of private communications to challenge that order. It ensures that anyone who is the subject of such an order, or their legal representative, can seek recourse if they believe that their rights have been infringed upon. Overall, this section of the Criminal Code of Canada serves to safeguard the privacy rights of individuals by providing a mechanism for them to challenge orders allowing intercepts of their private communications when such orders are being used in investigations of serious offences.


Section 164.3(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada establishes the right of an accused person or the Attorney General to appeal a court order made pursuant to subsection (4) of the same section. Subsection (4) gives the court the power to make an order for the forfeiture of property obtained or derived from a sexual offence against a child or the commission of a child pornography offence. The availability of an appeal under subsection (5) is an essential safeguard against wrongful deprivation of property in cases where the accused has been falsely charged or convicted. Additionally, a right to appeal provides an opportunity for the accused to challenge the legal basis for the court's decision. This right is consistent with the principles of fairness, due process, and the rule of law, which underpin Canada's legal system. Part XXI of the Criminal Code outlines the procedure for appeals of criminal court decisions, with some modifications necessary to ensure that the specific circumstances of forfeiture orders are addressed. Appeals under subsection (5) must be brought before the court of appeal, and the appellant must present grounds for appeal, such as an error of law or a finding of fact that is unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The appeal court has the power to consider any relevant information in the case and may require the parties to provide additional evidence or submissions. The court may also refer the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration or order a new hearing altogether. One important consideration when interpreting subsection (5) is the potential effect that forfeiture orders can have on an accused person's ability to mount a defence. The forfeiture of assets may limit an accused's access to legal representation or make it difficult to pay for expert witnesses or other costs associated with mounting a defence. As such, it is vital that appeals under subsection (5) are heard promptly and that accused persons are given adequate notice and time to prepare their case. Overall, Section 164.3(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada plays a critical role in ensuring that accused persons are given a fair hearing and that decisions on the forfeiture of property are subject to review in appropriate cases. This provision is consistent with Canada's commitment to the protection of individual rights, due process, and the principles of a fair and impartial justice system.


Section 164.3(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a crucial mechanism for contesting an order made under subsection (4), which permits the courts to restrict or prohibit the publication of information that could harm the identity or privacy of the victim or any witnesses in a sexual offence case. These orders are typically obtained at the request of the victim, the prosecutor, or the court itself, and they play a vital role in protecting the dignity, integrity, and safety of the parties involved. While these orders are generally well-intentioned, they can also raise significant legal and ethical challenges for journalists, academics, activists, and others who play a role in generating public discourse on sexual violence issues. The restrictions can limit the freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and access to information in ways that may be incompatible with the principles of democracy, accountability, and transparency. As such, individuals who seek to appeal an order made under subsection (4) or support such efforts may need to consider a range of strategic considerations, including the following: 1. Timing: It is essential to act swiftly when contesting an order under subsection (4) because any delays could undermine the effectiveness of the appeal. The appellant or their legal counsel must understand the relevant deadlines, procedural requirements, and legal standards for appeal, as well as any relevant case law, constitutional principles, or human rights norms that may apply. 2. Evidence: A successful appeal is likely to depend on the quality and reliability of the evidence presented. The appellant must be prepared to demonstrate that the order under subsection (4) is unjustified, unreasonable, or disproportionate, and that it infringes on important constitutional or legal rights. To do so, they may need to draw on diverse sources of evidence, such as witness testimony, legal precedent, expert opinion, statistical data, or media coverage. 3. Legal expertise: It is advisable to seek the advice of experienced legal counsel who specialize in criminal law, constitutional law, human rights law, or media law. They can provide valuable guidance on legal strategy, argumentation, and evidence, as well as represent the appellant in court and negotiate with the other parties involved. 4. Media strategy: Those who are challenging an order made under subsection (4) or supporting such challenges may also need to consider their media strategy carefully. They must balance the need to raise public awareness, garner support, and mobilize resources with the risk of violating the terms of the order or causing harm to the victim or other parties. Effective media strategies should prioritize ethical and responsible reporting, respect for privacy, and sensitivity to the needs and perspectives of all parties involved. 5. Collaboration: Finally, challenging orders under subsection (4) requires collaboration and coordination among different actors and stakeholders. These may include the appellant, their legal counsel, media organizations, civil society groups, academic researchers, and victims' advocates. By working together, they can share knowledge, resources, and advocacy tools, as well as build coalitions and alliances that can help to amplify their voice and influence. In conclusion, appealing orders made under section 164.3(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada requires careful consideration of a range of legal, strategic, ethical, and collaborative factors. Successful appeals depend on the ability to navigate complex legal processes, present compelling evidence, and leverage diverse advocacy tools, while respecting the rights and dignity of all parties involved. By doing so, appellants can help to ensure that sexual violence survivors' rights are protected while upholding the principles of democracy, freedom of expression, and access to information.