Criminal Code — C-46 186
Judge to be satisfied 186 (1) An authorization under this section may be given if the judge to whom the application is made is satisfied (a) that it would be in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so; and (b) that other investigative procedures have been tried and have failed, other investigative procedures are unlikely to succeed or the urgency of the matter is such that it would be impractical to carry out the investigation of the offence using only other investigative procedures. Exception for criminal organizations and terrorism offences (1.1) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(b), that paragraph does not apply where the judge is satisfied that the application for an authorization is in relation to (a) an offence under section 52, 52.1, 52.2, 467.11, 467.111, 467.12 or 467.13; (b) an offence committed for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a criminal organization; (b.1) an offence under subsection 20(1), 20.1(1), 20.2(1), 20.3(1) or 20.4(1) of the Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act ; or (c) a terrorism offence. Where authorization not to be given (2) No authorization may be given to intercept a private communication at the office or residence of a solicitor, or at any other place ordinarily used by a solicitor and by other solicitors for the purpose of consultation with clients, unless the judge to whom the application is made is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the solicitor, any other solicitor practising with him, any person employed by him or any other such solicitor or a member of the solicitor’s household has been or is about to become a party to an offence. Terms and conditions (3) Where an authorization is given in relation to the interception of private communications at a place described in subsection (2), the judge by whom the authorization is given shall include therein such terms and conditions as he considers advisable to protect privileged communications between solicitors and clients. Content and limitation of authorization (4) An authorization shall (a) state the offence in respect of which private communications may be intercepted; (b) state the type of private communication that may be intercepted; (c) state the identity of the persons, if known, whose private communications are to be intercepted, generally describe the place at which private communications may be intercepted, if a general description of that place can be given, and generally describe the manner of interception that may be used; (d) contain such terms and conditions as the judge considers advisable in the public interest; and (e) be valid for the period, not exceeding sixty days, set out therein. Persons designated (5) The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness or the Attorney General, as the case may be, may designate a person or persons who may intercept private communications under authorizations. Installation and removal of device (5.1) For greater certainty, an authorization that permits interception by means of an electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device includes the authority to install, maintain or remove the device covertly. Removal after expiry of authorization (5.2) On an ex parte application, in writing, supported by affidavit, the judge who gave an authorization referred to in subsection (5.1) or any other judge having jurisdiction to give such an authorization may give a further authorization for the covert removal of the electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device after the expiry of the original authorization (a) under any terms or conditions that the judge considers advisable in the public interest; and (b) during any specified period of not more than sixty days. Renewal of authorization (6) Renewals of an authorization may be given by a judge of a superior court of criminal jurisdiction or a judge as defined in section 552 on receipt by him or her of an ex parte application in writing signed by th