Skip to main content
COVID-19 information and screening Learn how we’re keeping our campus community safe, healthy and engaged during our gradual return to campus.
Note: The university’s mandatory vaccine directive is now in effect. Learn more about vaccine requirements.
Ontario Tech acknowledges the lands and people of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation.

We are thankful to be welcome on these lands in friendship. The lands we are situated on are covered by the Williams Treaties and are the traditional territory of the Mississaugas, a branch of the greater Anishinaabeg Nation, including Algonquin, Ojibway, Odawa and Pottawatomi. These lands remain home to many Indigenous nations and peoples.

We acknowledge this land out of respect for the Indigenous nations who have cared for Turtle Island, also called North America, from before the arrival of settler peoples until this day. Most importantly, we acknowledge that the history of these lands has been tainted by poor treatment and a lack of friendship with the First Nations who call them home.

This history is something we are all affected by because we are all treaty people in Canada. We all have a shared history to reflect on, and each of us is affected by this history in different ways. Our past defines our present, but if we move forward as friends and allies, then it does not have to define our future.

Learn more about Indigenous Education and Cultural Services

Hanging Up on Fearon: Cellphone Privacy and the Supreme Court

Joanne Prince, PhD candidate, Faculty of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School

Published April 22, 2018 by Technologies of Justice.

On January 26, 2018, at the Technologies of Justice Conference session on surveillance, privacy and security in the digital era, Joanne Prince spoke on cellphone privacy and the Supreme Court. The conference took place at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.

 

 

Prince explained the characterization of privacy in the Supreme Court, starting with the Fearon Case. She posed the question: "Should the Supreme Court recognize the technological implications of, or the information contained in the cellphone?"
 
She spoke on the way technology has started playing a larger role in our day-to-day lives, and how the lack of updated law and creation of new protocol on new digital hardware and software can cause confusion and sometimes misplaced justice in modern court cases. She highlighted the different standard between computers and cellphones in legal cases, how cellphone and computer privacy can be seen as different, and how there are different expectations of privacy depending on the device.
 
She provided an overview of the Fearon case, in which exclusion of evidence was requested in a cellphone search, and how this became a keystone case in cellphone search law. Questions asked as part of the Fearon case included:

  • “Is phone search territorial/trespassing, informational, biographical, biological...what is the personal interest of the privacy?”
  • “Does the claimant have a reasonable expectation of privacy, dignity and integrity?”
  • “Even if a cellphone may be biographical evidence, do we think a search warrant needed?”

Prince dug deeper into cellphone technology, emphasizing the changing nature of types of data stored on a cellphone, and the personal content, which is becoming more and more common on phones and smarter devices. She asked, "Should the police be able to search a phone without a warrant even in a search incident to arrest?" She explaining how conducting what could be called a 'cursory' search can mean anything from a quick scan-over of messages and pictures, to a full data dump of a device. She spoke about the importance of defining this in terms of personal technology and future technology, because of the lack of guidelines and protocols, as the system currently works on a case-to-case basis in Canada.