Sentences with phrase «general warrants under»

For the Court of Appeal, general warrants under s. 487.01 are to be used «sparingly» as they authorize the use of investigative techniques, procedures or devices, or other things to be done, that would otherwise constitute unreasonable searches.

[10] General warrants under s. 487.01 authorize the use of investigative techniques, procedures or devices, or other things to be done, that would otherwise constitute unreasonable searches.

The recent litigation in Canada regarding production orders that were issued before the amendment to s. 487.012 began with R v Telus Communications Co., [2013] 2 SCR 3 where the Supreme Court of Canada held that a general warrant under s. 487.01 of the Code could not be used to compel a telecommunication company to provide prospective text messages to the police.

In this unreported case in the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Q.B. No.: 160544938Q1, at Calgary, the police obtained a general warrant under s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code to search mobile telephones for text messages and other data.

Not exact matches

But I don't know if his general performance level status at the AFC Under 21 squad is consistently strong to warrant the Boss to promote him to the senior team.

In general, the government administrative functions carry along under «Special Warrants.»

If the Administrator finds that the financial responsibility, experience, character and general fitness of the applicant are such as to warrant belief that the business will be operated pursuant to the Credit Services Organization Act and rules promulgated pursuant thereto, the Administrator shall grant the application and issue to the applicant a license which will evidence his authority to do business under the provisions of the Credit Services Organization Act.

In a case reported as R. v. Telus Communications Co., 2013 SCC 16 the police wanted to seize text messages stored in the databases of Telus under a general warrant.

In the cases I reviewed here, every official in the justice system failed the test — a governing body of the legal profession that released documents to the police without a warrant, a judge who granted a wiretap authorization with a general warrant to search mobile devices without limitation other than a temporal one and a Crown attorney who released privileged information after presumptively reviewing it for disclosure purposes under the Stinchcombe regime.

On February 21, 2017, an application was filed before Justice Glen Poelman, a case management judge under s. 551.1 of the Code, asserting that the general warrant was invalid because it authorized a search and seizure that was overly broad and in breach of ss.

The general warrant was issued, in substance, to search the «Limited Edition» store — in other words, for the same investigative technique which was otherwise available under s. 11 of the CDSA (less the more demanding or «onerous» requirements of that section).

The police may either issue a warrant for the arrest of the abducting parent or, in cases that fall under s. 283, the Attorney - General may issue the warrant.

TELUS applied to quash the warrant, arguing that the general warrant was invalid because the police had failed to satisfy the requirement under s. 487.01 (1)(c) of the...

Fourth, in § 160.203, several criteria relating to the statutory grounds for exception determinations have been further spelled out: (1) The words «related to the provision of or payment for health care» have been added to the exception for fraud and abuse; (2) the words «to the extent expressly authorized by statute or regulation» have been added to the exception for state regulation of health plans; (3) the words «of serving a compelling need related to public health, safety, or welfare, and, where a standard, requirement, or implementation specification under part 164 of this subchapter is at issue, where the Secretary determines that the intrusion into privacy is warranted when balanced against the need to be served» have been added to the general exception «for other purposes»; and (4) the statutory provision regarding controlled substances has been elaborated on as follows: «Has as its principal purpose the regulation of the manufacture, registration, distribution, dispensing, or other control of any controlled substance, as defined at 21 U.S.C. 802, or which is deemed a controlled substance by state law.»

Required by law includes, but is not limited to, court orders and court - ordered warrants; subpoenas or summons issued by a court, grand jury, a governmental or tribal inspector general, or an administrative body authorized to require the production of information; a civil or an authorized investigative demand; Medicare conditions of participation with respect to health care providers participating in the program; and statutes or regulations that require the production of information, including statutes or regulations that require such information if payment is sought under a government program providing public benefits.

The federal Crown, supported by the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General as an intervener, argued there was no need to obtain an «intercept» warrant under the more rigorous Part VI provisions of the Criminal Code, in part because Telus routinely stores electronic copies of all text messages sent by its customers on a database for 30 days.

Under former Attorney General Eric Holder — under some pressure from Congress — the Department of Justice in 2015 issued a policy that federal authorities could only use cell - site simulators with a warUnder former Attorney General Eric Holder — under some pressure from Congress — the Department of Justice in 2015 issued a policy that federal authorities could only use cell - site simulators with a warunder some pressure from Congress — the Department of Justice in 2015 issued a policy that federal authorities could only use cell - site simulators with a warrant.