section 184.3(1)


Allows for an ex parte application for authorization under subsection 184.2(2) by telephone or other means if personal appearance is impracticable.


184.3(1) Notwithstanding section 184.2, an application for an authorization under subsection 184.2(2) may be made ex parte to a provincial court judge, a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552, by telephone or other means of telecommunication, if it would be impracticable in the circumstances for the applicant to appear personally before a judge.


Section 184.3(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows for a situation where an application may be made ex parte to obtain an authorization without having to appear personally before a judge. This authorization is required for certain investigative techniques, specifically for the interception of private communications and the tracking of a person's movements using electronic devices. Under normal circumstances, an application for authorization must be made in person before a judge. However, in exceptional circumstances, this may not be possible or may be impractical. In such cases, section 184.3(1) allows for the application to be made via telephone or other means of telecommunication. The decision to grant or deny an authorization is ultimately made by the judge, based on the application and any additional evidence presented to them. The authorization itself allows for the use of specific investigative techniques for a specified period of time. It is important to note that the use of these investigative techniques is subject to strict requirements and limitations in order to protect the privacy and Charter rights of individuals. The ex parte process provided for in section 184.3(1) is meant to provide a practical solution in exceptional circumstances, while still maintaining these important protections.


Section 184.3(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that allows for an expedited means of obtaining a wiretap authorization in cases where it is impracticable for the applicant to appear before a judge in person. This section is an important tool in the fight against serious forms of crime such as drug trafficking, organized crime, and terrorism, as it allows law enforcement to quickly gain the intelligence necessary to prevent or investigate these criminal activities before they can cause harm. This provision allows for ex parte applications to be made by telephone or other means of telecommunication, enabling law enforcement to seek authorization for a wiretap in a timely and efficient manner, even in cases where the applicant is located remotely from the court. This is essential in cases where there is an immediate need for intelligence gathering, such as situations where there is an imminent threat to public safety. The provision is designed to strike a balance between the need for swift action in criminal investigations and the right to privacy and other Charter rights of Canadian citizens. As such, the provision requires that the applicant provide compelling reasons why it would be impractical to appear before a judge in person. This ensures that the provision is not used indiscriminately and that there is a legitimate need for the wiretap authorization. It is also important to note that this provision is subject to strict judicial oversight, with the judge being required to consider the same factors as in a standard wiretap application. The judge must also take into account any information received from the intercepted communications that may indicate that the wiretap has been used in a manner that is not consistent with the authorization. Overall, Section 184.3(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a tool that can be used judiciously in the fight against serious crime. Its provisions ensure that such wiretap authorizations are given only in cases where there is a demonstrated need for them, and with appropriate judicial oversight to ensure that the rights of individuals under the Charter are not infringed upon. In this way, it provides a balance between the need for effective law enforcement and the protection of the fundamental rights of Canadians.


When dealing with section 184.3(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada, there are several strategic considerations that one must keep in mind. This section allows law enforcement agencies to carry out electronic surveillance without the need for a warrant or notification to the target. Such a breached privacy invasion can be used without any valid reason. Thus, the use of such surveillance is restricted to certain situations where it is deemed impractical to obtain a warrant and can only be used for certain specific offenses. One of the main considerations is the balance between privacy and security. The ex parte applications for authorization can compromise individual privacy, which is a fundamental right in Canada. However, there are situations where national security or the prevention of significant criminal activities can justify the use of this provision. Balancing these two factors to arrive at the right decision is key to any successful strategy. Another strategic consideration is the practicality of obtaining a warrant in specific circumstances. If the law enforcement agency is working with a significant time constraint or the target is evading arrest, an ex parte application may be necessary. In such situations, quick action may be the only option to prevent serious harm. A strategy may be to gather as much evidence as possible to satisfy the requirement of impracticality, or to show that the ex parte application was necessary to prevent immediate harm. The strategy to be employed may also depend on the type of judge to whom the ex parte application is made. A provincial court judge may be more likely to grant an ex parte application in a short time than a judge of a superior court, making it the go-to option in cases of emergency. In contrast, a judge of the superior court may require higher levels of evidence and may consider the broader implications of granting an ex parte application. In such situations, it may be necessary to show that it was impractical to obtain a warrant due to the urgency of the situation. Additionally, the type of communication used for the ex parte application is another strategic consideration. While a phone call may offer quick results, video conferences may give a better sense of the likelihood of success. A video conference allows the judge to see evidence and gauge the authenticity and urgency of the situation. Therefore, a strategy may be to choose the mode of communication carefully and to present evidence in a clear, concise, and compelling manner. In conclusion, section 184.3(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows for electronic surveillance without a warrant in specific circumstances to prevent harm to individuals or to the nation. However, the use of this provision must be justified based on impracticality, and the consideration of privacy, security, and urgency must be carefully balanced. The strategy employed should consider the type of judge to whom the application is made, the mode of communication used, and the evidence presented. The decision to use this provision is not one to be taken lightly, and the balance of privacy and security must always be kept in mind.