The Supreme Court of Canada’s recently-issued decision in R. v. Spencer addressed the narrow question of whether the identification by police of pornographic files on a specific person’s computer, following disclosure by his Internet Service Provider (ISP) of the information associated with his IP address, especially his name and address, amounted to a warrantless search.
Taken in isolation, the conclusion that, in response to a police request not backed by a warrant, the disclosure by Shaw of the subscriber name and address which matched Mr. Spencer’s IP (and subsequent search) was unlawful, may appear a narrow point, most applicable to law enforcement in the digital age. The decision certainly raises policy issues for the government, and Michael Geist’s blog is an excellent resource for further research.
The court concluded that it was reasonable to expect the subscriber information – the link between the IP and the individual with which it was associated – would be kept private. The court underlined that while the information revealed might appear inconsequential, an IP address, which may then be tied to an individual, might be used to reveal far greater information about the individual and their online activities:
“The disclosure of this information will often amount to the identification of a user with intimate or sensitive activities being carried out online, usually on the understanding that these activities would be anonymous” [at para. 66]
The point which may be more relevant to businesses which are not typically subject to requests of this nature from law enforcement, is underlining the degree to which the personal information of identifiable individuals is to be protected. The decision notes that the “collection, use and disclosure” of personal information of subscribers is governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) and that sharing it without the subscriber’s consent may only follow a request from a government institution with “lawful authority.” The warrantless request did not constitute such authority.
Considerable time was spent underlining anonymity as a component of privacy, and businesses plying their trade online would be well-advised to respect this finding. Controls, both physical and digital, may be necessary to prevent access to information of this kind (in addition to avoiding its voluntary disclosure), wherever information linking the digital fingerprint of an online visitor to their real-world identity may be stored.
Please visit the link below for a complete copy of the decision:
R. v. Spencer, 2014 SCC 43 (CanLII)
Producers play a critical role in the music industry. A skilled producer can be the deciding factor between a track becoming a viral hit or fading into obscurity. Behind every successful record is a producer agreement that sets the foundation for the collaboration. Here are five practical tips for producers, and their managers, when negotiating […]
read moreCanadian trademark registrations last for 10 years and are renewable upon the payment of a maintenance fee. However, lack of use in the marketplace may render your registration subject to possible expungement. Traditionally, an application for trademark expungement was initiated by an interested person seeking expungement through the Canadian Trademarks Act. However, since January of […]
read moreOn June 23, 2025, we reported on our expectations for Nova Scotia’s new Mandatory Harassment Prevention Policy regulations. We are pleased to update that the long-awaited regulations were published on August 22, 2025 in the Royal Gazette Part II and will soon be added as Part 27 of the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations made […]
read more
