Any substantive changes in this Library of Parliament Legislative Summary that have been made since the preceding issue are indicated in bold print.
On 8 February 2022, the Honourable Marc Gold introduced Bill S‑4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID‑19 response and other measures), in the Senate on behalf of the government.1 The bill later passed second reading and was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (LCJC) for study. The committee proposed one amendment and offered six observations.2 The Senate passed Bill S‑4 as amended by LCJC on 21 June 2022.
The bill received first reading in the House of Commons on 23 September 2022 and was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for consideration on 24 November 2022. It passed third reading on 13 December 2022 and received Royal Assent on 15 December 2022.
Bill S‑4 aims to increase the efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility of the criminal justice system in response to the challenges posed by the COVID‑19 pandemic. According to the federal government, it will "give courts increased flexibility in how they hold criminal proceedings and issue orders."3 In particular, the bill:
Bill S‑4 follows other pre‑pandemic efforts to modernize the criminal justice system and reduce delays in court proceedings. Most notably, the bill was preceded by Bill C‑75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which received Royal Assent on 21 June 2019.5 Bill C‑75 was intended to make the criminal justice system more efficient in response to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jordan and R. v. Cody, and the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Delaying Justice Is Denying Justice: An Urgent Need to Address Lengthy Court Delays in Canada.6 Bill S‑4 includes a number of minor technical amendments to address issues identified during the implementation of Bill C‑75.7
While delays in the criminal justice system were already a serious concern prior to the COVID‑19 pandemic, the pandemic and related public health measures have significantly exacerbated the problem. In March 2020, at the outset of the pandemic, courts across Canada suspended regular operations, with most of them adjourning criminal matters involving out‑of‑custody accused until May 2020 or later.8 Jury trials in some jurisdictions were postponed for much longer.9 Courts have adapted both their physical spaces and their practices in various ways to overcome the challenges of the pandemic, for example, by allowing documents to be filed electronically and by conducting proceedings remotely whenever possible.10 However, such efforts have been limited by statutory and other barriers, such as the requirement that the accused be physically present in court for any part of a trial in which evidence is being taken.11 Bill S‑4 addresses some of these barriers, and it facilitates the use of new technologies and practices within the criminal justice system.
Bill S‑4 is substantially similar to Bill C‑23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID‑19 response and other measures), which was introduced in February 2021. That bill did not complete second reading and died on the Order Paper when Parliament dissolved on 15 August 2021.12
Bill S‑4 contains 79 clauses. Key clauses are discussed in the following section of this Legislative Summary.
Unlike an application for a regular warrant, a telewarrant application does not require the officer to appear in person before a judge or justice. A number of current provisions under the Code require an officer applying for a telewarrant to state why it would be impracticable to appear in person before a judge or justice to obtain the warrant. This can include describing what efforts were made to make a personal appearance possible, including verifying whether a judge or justice is available. The term "impracticable" can be defined as "something less than impossible" and relies on "what may be termed common sense."13 Failure to demonstrate an officer's efforts to confirm whether a judge or justice is available for an in‑person application can invalidate a telewarrant.14
Bill S‑4 amends or repeals numerous provisions related to warrants, telewarrants and telecommunication. Some of the changes are comparatively minor and serve primarily to modernize or update the language currently used, for example, removing references to faxes. One key modification is the repeal or amendment of Code requirements to justify making a warrant application by telecommunication instead of making an in‑person application. This effectively normalizes the use of telecommunication when applying for a warrant in certain cases, instead of treating it as a secondary procedural option or an exception.
The bill replaces the term "telewarrant" in the Code with "warrant" applied for and issued "by a means of telecommunication." The term "telewarrant" is used in this Legislative Summary when referring to existing Code provisions. References to relevant amended or new provisions use the term "warrant" to reflect the language of the bill.
Currently under the Code, an officer who believes an indictable offence has occurred may apply for a search warrant (section 487) or telewarrant (section 487.1) to authorize the search of a "place" for a "thing" related to the offence and to seize it.
Clause 22 of Bill S‑4 amends section 487.1 of the Code to create a new process that permits the use of a means of telecommunication to apply for and issue a variety of warrants, authorizations and orders.
Appendix A to this Legislative Summary contains a table that lists the various types of applications for warrants or orders that may be submitted by a means of telecommunication, following amendments under the bill.
As with the current Code provisions, the new process in amended section 487.1 distinguishes between telecommunications that produce a writing (such as email) and those that do not (such as a telephone or video call) when applying for a warrant or order. For the purposes of this section of the Legislative Summary, the terms "written telecommunication" or "audio telecommunication" will be used. Additional procedural steps are included in the bill for the use of audio telecommunications, mirroring the existing steps for applications submitted by telephone. In addition, the bill removes existing references to telephones and faxes, and instead refers to more general "means of telecommunication."
The bill preserves current alternatives to swearing an oath in person when applying for a warrant using telecommunication, when required. An application made via written telecommunication may include a written statement as to the truth of the application's contents, which will be deemed to be a statement made under oath (amended section 487.1(2)). Where the application is made via audio telecommunication, any required oath may also be sworn via telecommunication (amended section 487.1(7)).
Under the new process, written telecommunication is the preferred default, compared to audio telecommunication. An applicant for a warrant or order may use a means of audio telecommunication only if it is "impracticable" to use a means of written telecommunication (amended section 487.1(5)). The applicant must also include a statement justifying that choice (amended section 487.1(6)). While the current Code provisions draw some procedural distinctions between written telecommunication and audio telecommunication, this specific requirement is new. The application may be denied absent reasonable grounds to use audio telecommunication (amended section 487.1(9)). A judge or justice must record such applications verbatim, either in writing or by other means (amended section 487.1(8)). If the application is approved, a judge or justice may issue the warrant or order using the same type of telecommunication used by the applicant. If the application was made using a form of audio telecommunication, the judge or justice will direct the applicant to transcribe the approved warrant or order (amended section 487.1(10)).
Clause 18 adds new section 487.02(2), which allows a judge or justice to issue an order to provide assistance with a warrant or authorization or an order to intercept private communication by means of a telecommunication.
Clause 23 amends section 487.2, thereby removing the existing restriction on publishing, broadcasting or transmitting information related to a search warrant or telewarrant from warrants issued by telecommunication under amended section 487.1. Clause 24 amends section 488 to remove warrants issued via telecommunication from the requirement that warrants be executed by day, except in certain circumstances. Currently, section 488 stipulates that a warrant under section 487 or telewarrant issued under section 487.1 may only be executed by night if specifically authorized under that warrant or telewarrant. The restriction still applies to warrants applied for in person.
The Code currently requires that the use of a telewarrant instead of an in‑person warrant in the following cases be justified:
Clauses 20 and 21, respectively, repeal these provisions, thereby providing that the new process established under amended section 487.1 applies to these types of warrant.
Clause 10 amends section 320.29 to remove references to telephones or telecommunication when applying for a warrant to obtain blood samples to determine blood alcohol or blood drug concentration. The option to use telecommunication when submitting an application for this type of warrant is now provided under amended section 487.1(1).
Clause 34 amends section 529.5 of the Code by removing references to telephones and to the impracticability of appearing in person for arrest warrants, warrants to enter a dwelling‑house to arrest a person or warrants to enter a dwelling‑house unannounced. The existing section 487.1 currently applies to these types of warrants. The new process under amended section 487.1 covers applications for these types of warrants via all means of telecommunication. Clause 49 adds new section 742.6(1.1) to permit applications for arrest warrants related to a breach of a release condition via telecommunication.
Clause 6 amends the procedural steps for warrants to intercept a private communication under section 184.3 of the Code. An officer may now apply for a warrant using written telecommunication for the following (amended section 184.3(1)):
An officer may now apply for a warrant via written or audio telecommunication for the following:
The remaining procedural steps for a wiretap application (amended sections 184.3(3) to 184.3(8)) are very similar to those established in the new process under amended section 487.1.
Bill S‑4 also removes the current 36‑hour expiration limit on telewarrants for wiretaps with consent from a participant (current section 184.3(6)).
Current sections 487.1(7) and 487.1(8) of the Code require an officer executing a telewarrant issued under section 487.1 to provide a fax of the warrant to a person who is present and in control of the property. If no one present fits that description, the officer must post the faxed warrant on the property. Bill S‑4 makes no reference to faxes in the new application process for warrants using telecommunication in amended section 487.1.
Clause 22 of the bill adds new section 487.093(1) to the Code, which preserves the requirement for an officer to provide or post a copy of the warrant when executing certain types of warrants. In some circumstances, it adds a requirement to also provide a notice (amended Form 5.1, clause 57) that gives the address of the court from which to obtain a copy of the report filed by the person who executed the warrant. The report lists the property seized, if any, and the location at which this property is being held. The current notice form includes the details of the warrant, including the offence, the things to be searched for and the place to be searched. These details are not included in the amended notice form.
New section 487.093(1) extends the requirements to provide a copy of the warrant and a notice in relation to any search for weapons or ammunition (section 117.04(1)), illegal betting (section 199(1)), valuable minerals (section 395(1)) or warrants not applied for using telecommunication (section 487(1)). These new requirements do not apply if the warrant relates to the search of anything that has already been seized (new section 487.093(2)). If the warrant is for the search of a person relating to the possession of valuable minerals, the person executing the warrant must provide the person to be searched with a copy of the warrant and the notice (new section 487.093(1)(c)).
Clause 12 amends section 462.32(4) by adding an identical requirement to provide or post a warrant and a notice in Form 5.1 when executing a warrant for the search, seizure and detention of proceeds of crime. Currently, the person who executes a warrant must provide a copy of a report that lists the property seized to the owner and other individuals who have an interest in that property (section 462.32(4)(c)), upon request. The bill removes the responsibility of the person executing the warrant to provide a copy of the report beyond filing it with the court, and instead places the onus on the interested party to request a copy from the court.
Similarly, amended section 320.29(5) provides that an officer executing a warrant for a blood sample to determine drug or alcohol concentration is required to provide a copy of the warrant and a notice in Form 5.1 as soon as is practicable to the person giving the sample. This amendment replaces the existing requirement to provide only a copy of the warrant, or in the case of a warrant issued by telephone or other type of telecommunication, a fax of the warrant.
Currently, under the Code, courts are granted the power to make rules about the procedure to be followed in criminal proceedings (section 482) and the power to make rules for case management (section 482.1). The latter expressly includes rules permitting court staff to deal with administrative matters relating to proceedings out of court but only where the accused is represented by counsel (section 482.1(1)(b)). Clause 13 amends section 482.1(1)(b) to eliminate the requirement for the accused to be represented by counsel under this section. It thereby opens the door for court staff to assist unrepresented accused with administrative matters.
Bill S‑4 amends or repeals a number of sections of the Code that deal with the remote attendance of accused individuals (i.e., individuals charged with a criminal offence), offenders (i.e., individuals convicted of a criminal offence) and others at criminal proceedings. The principal amendments are found in clause 46, which amends current sections 715.23 and 715.24 of the Code to include a more detailed set of provisions relating to remote attendance. Some of the new provisions clarify the language or broaden the application of existing provisions, while others are entirely new to the Code.
There are currently a number of sections throughout the Code that provide for the appearance of an accused either by counsel or by closed‑circuit television or videoconference at different types of proceedings. For several of these sections, Bill S‑4 effectively replaces the portion dealing with appearances by closed‑circuit television or videoconference with new sections 715.231 to 715.241. These new sections set out the circumstances under which a court may allow an accused or offender to appear by audioconference or videoconference at different types of proceedings. The new sections do not refer to closed‑circuit television.
Currently, under sections 650(1), 650(1.1) and 650(1.2) of the Code, an accused is required to "be present in court during the whole of his or her trial," subject to certain exceptions that permit an accused to appear by counsel (if not in prison) or by closed‑circuit television or videoconference for parts of the trial in which evidence is not being taken. For an accused not in prison, such an appearance requires the agreement of the prosecutor and the accused. Section 537(1)(j) gives a justice at a preliminary inquiry the power to allow an accused to appear by counsel or by closed‑circuit television or videoconference under similar conditions.
Under clause 39, amended section 650(1) preserves the requirement that an accused be present in court throughout a trial but specifies that the accused's presence may be either in person or by audioconference or videoconference, where authorized under new sections 715.231 to 715.241.
Clauses 39 and 35(1) provide that amended sections 650(1.1) and 537(1)(j) preserve the existing conditions for appearing by counsel at trial and at a preliminary inquiry, respectively. However, the portions of these sections dealing with appearances by closed‑circuit television or videoconference are eliminated, as they are now dealt with under new sections 715.231 to 715.241.
Currently, section 715.23(1) of the Code gives a court the power to order an accused to appear by audioconference or videoconference, and sets out a list of factors to consider in determining whether such an order is appropriate. Clause 46 amends section 715.23, setting out the same list of factors but applying them more broadly whenever the court makes "a determination to allow or require an accused or offender to appear by audioconference or videoconference under any of [new] sections 715.231 to 715.241."
Appendix B to this Legislative Summary contains a table that presents the new Code sections that set out the circumstances under which an accused or offender may be allowed to appear remotely.
As shown in Table B.1, remote appearances continue to require the consent of the prosecutor and the accused in most cases. However, an accused may now appear remotely at a trial even when evidence is being taken, unless the evidence is being presented to a jury in a trial for an indictable offence (new section 715.233). In addition, remote appearances at sentencing proceedings are now expressly provided for under new section 715.235.
Bill S‑4 also broadens the protections afforded to accused individuals with regard to remote appearances. Currently, section 715.24 of the Code ensures that an accused in prison and without access to legal advice is only allowed to appear by videoconference if the court is satisfied that they will be able to understand the proceedings and make voluntary decisions. This section is replaced by new section 715.242, which extends the relevant protection to appearances by audioconference or videoconference by all accused people and offenders.
Similarly, current sections 537(1)(k), 650(1.2) and 800(2.1) of the Code protect the right of a represented accused in prison to communicate privately with counsel when appearing remotely. These sections also permit a judge to require or order an accused in prison to appear by closed‑circuit television or videoconference under certain conditions. Bill S‑4 repeals these sections and extends the right to be given an opportunity to communicate privately with counsel to include all represented accused people and offenders under new section 715.243. Under new section 715.241, an appearance by videoconference may only be required where the accused in custody has access to legal advice (in addition to the existing conditions).
Clause 47 of Bill S‑4 amends section 715.25 of the Code, which addresses the presence in court of other "participants," such as counsel, court support workers or members of the public. The definition of a "participant" set out in section 715.25(1) excludes an accused, a witness, a juror and a judge or justice. The bill amends the definition of "participant" to add "offender" to the list of excluded persons. Under the amended section, a court may now "allow" rather than "order" a participant to join a proceeding by audioconference or videoconference, where appropriate.
Currently, sections 715.23(2) and 715.25(3) of the Code stipulate that a court must give reasons for denying a request from an accused or a participant, respectively, to attend a proceeding by audioconference or videoconference. The Code also provides that a court may halt the participation of an accused or a participant via these technologies at any time (sections 715.23(3) and 715.25(4), respectively). New sections 715.221 and 715.222 replace these four sections with two more broadly worded ones that apply to anyone seeking to attend or attending court via audioconference or videoconference (clause 46). Consequently, these new sections now apply to witnesses, jurors, judges and justices.
Clause 52 renders Part XXII.01 of the Code, which deals with remote attendance and includes sections 715.21 to 715.27, applicable to summary conviction proceedings under Part XXVII.
Bill S‑4 also clarifies the distinction between appearing "personally" versus "in person" in a number of sections throughout the Code. While these terms are not expressly defined in the bill or the Code, the plain meaning, statutory context and some jurisprudence indicate that "in person" refers to being physically present, whereas "personally" refers to being present in some form (whether in person or via telecommunication), rather than appearing by counsel only.15 Bill S‑4 substitutes one term for another in a number of sections to more accurately reflect this distinction, clarify which term applies and/or ensure equivalent wording in the English and French versions of the Code (amended sections 502.1(1), 502.1(4), 502.1(5), 515(2.2), 688(2.1), 714.1(b), 715.21, 715.23(b), 715.25(2)(b), 774.1, 800(2) and 817(2)). For the most part, these amendments clarify that those involved in criminal proceedings should be present in person unless otherwise provided for.
Clause 14 amends section 485(1.1) of the Code to clarify that jurisdiction over an accused is not lost where the accused fails to appear either personally or in person, so long as either option is permitted under another provision of the Code.
Clause 48 adds new section 715.27 to Part XXII.01 of the Code, which deals with remote attendance. This new section gives courts the power to allow or require prospective jurors to participate in the jury selection process by videoconference where appropriate, with the consent of the prosecutor and the accused.
New section 715.27(2) sets out a list of circumstances for the court to consider in determining whether participation by videoconference is appropriate. Participation by videoconference may only be required if the court provides prospective jurors with an approved location from which they can do so; otherwise jurors retain the option to appear in person (new sections 715.27(3) and 715.27(4)).
Currently, section 631 of the Code sets out a process for selecting a jury from a pool of prospective jurors by drawing name cards from a box. Clause 38 adds new section 631.1, which allows for a jury to be randomly selected by "electronic or other automated means." This provides statutory authority for selecting a jury via a computer‑generated list.
Under the Identification of Criminals Act,16 an accused or offender who meets certain criteria may be subject to fingerprinting or other identification measures. Under the Code, an accused who is not in custody may be ordered to appear for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act via an appearance notice (section 500(3)) or undertaking (section 501(4)), or as part of a summons requiring their attendance in court (section 509(5)).
Since the outset of the COVID‑19 pandemic, many accused have been unable to attend for fingerprinting on the date they were initially required to do so. This has created a problem since there is no provision expressly authorizing a court to compel the attendance of an accused or offender for fingerprinting where the initial date is missed. According to a 1983 Manitoba court decision, a summons compelling attendance for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act only (rather than as part of a summons to attend court) is unlawful.17 In a more recent case dealing with several accused who had failed to present themselves for fingerprinting during the pandemic, an Ontario court did find it had the authority to issue a summons for this purpose under section 512(1) of the Code (contrary to the Manitoba decision).18 Section 512(1) gives justices the residual discretion to issue a summons where necessary in the public interest. However, the court found that section 512(1) could not be relied upon to issue a summons for identification purposes to a convicted offender.
Bill S‑4 provides a court with clear and express authority to compel the attendance of an accused or offender for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act in two scenarios.
First, clause 15 adds new section 485.2 to the Code, which gives a justice or judge the power, on application, to issue a summons to an accused or offender for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act if identification measures were not completed at a previously required appearance for exceptional reasons (new section 485.2(1)). This power applies only when the matter to which the previously required appearance relates is ongoing (section 485.2(2)). The application can be made by telecommunication (new section 485.2(5)) but must be in writing (new section 485.2(1)) and must state the reasons why the identification measures were not previously completed (new section 485.2(3)). Clause 58 adds two new forms for the purposes of this new section of the Code: Form 6.1 to apply for a summons and Form 6.2 for the summons itself.
Clause 33 adds section 515.01 to the portion of the Code that deals with judicial interim release (commonly referred as "bail"). This new section gives a judge or justice the power to order an accused to appear for the purposes of the Identification of Criminals Act when making a judicial interim release order. Clause 60 adds a new form (Form 11.1) for this purpose.
Clauses 28, 29 and 31 amend sections 500(3), 501(4) and 509(5), respectively, which set out the existing means and criteria according to which an accused may be required to appear for identification purposes. These sections now refer directly to section 2(1)(c) of the Identification of Criminals Act, which is also amended by Bill S‑4 (see section 2.2 of this Legislative Summary).
The definitions of "primary designated offence" and "secondary designated offence" are set out in section 487.04 of the Code, along with lists of these types of offences. For most primary designated offences, an offender will be ordered to provide a DNA sample (section 487.051(1)). For secondary designated offences prosecuted by indictment, an offender may be ordered to provide a DNA sample if certain criteria are met (section 487.051(3)). Clause 19 amends section 487.04 to delete subparagraph (c)(iv.4) of the definition of "secondary designated offence," thereby removing "infanticide" from the list of secondary designated offences.
Clause 42 rectifies a previous omission in the Code relating to appeals for the following decisions:
The Code currently does not provide any remedies for when a court does not confirm a decision on appeal. Amended section 680(1) adds two: a court may either vary the original decision or substitute it with the decision that the court believes should have been made.
The principal change made to the Identification of Criminals Act is an amendment to section 2(1)(c), which sets out the types of offences for which a person may be required to appear for identification purposes under the amended Code. Clause 62 amends section 2(1)(c) so that it includes hybrid offences in addition to indictable offences, but excludes ticketable offences under the Cannabis Act.
In addition to the Code, numerous other Acts currently include provisions that authorize the use of telewarrants in certain circumstances. Bill S‑4 amends each of these provisions to authorize the general use of telecommunication when applying for and issuing a warrant. The new process outlined in amended section 487.1 of the Code applies to warrants submitted and issued under these Acts via telecommunication.
Table 1 presents the Acts modified by Bill S‑4 with their amended sections related to warrants and telecommunication.
| Clause(s) of Bill S‑4 | Act | Amended Section(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 63 | Food and Drugs Act | 23(12) |
| 64 | Hazardous Products Act | 22.1(4) |
| 65 | Pilotage Act | 46.13(4) |
| 66 | Controlled Drugs and Substances Act | 11(4) Requirement to provide or post a copy of the warrant and a Form 5.1 notice also applies. |
| 67 | Tobacco and Vaping Products Act | 36(4) |
| 68 | Canada Elections Act | 175(9) |
| 69 | Pest Control Products Act | 49(4) |
| 70 | Human Pathogens and Toxins Act | 42(4) |
| 71 | Canada Consumer Product Safety Act | 22(4) |
| 72 | Safe Food for Canadians Act | 26(4) |
| 73 and 74 | Cannabis Act | 86(10) and 87 Requirement to provide or post a copy of the warrant and a Form 5.1 notice also applies. |
| 75 | Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act | 75(4) |
Source:
Table prepared by the Library of Parliament using data obtained from Bill S‑4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID‑19 response and other measures), 44th Parliament, 1st Session (S.C. 2022, c. 17).
Clause 76 of Bill S‑4 provides that, upon receiving Royal Assent, Bill S‑4 applies to all ongoing proceedings. However, clause 77(1) of the bill stipulates that the current version of the Code continues to apply to certain authorizations and warrants issued or applied for before the bill receives Royal Assent. Similarly, clause 77(2) specifies that the current versions of provisions under other Acts amended by Bill S‑4 continue to apply to pending telewarrant applications made under those Acts.
Under clause 78 of the bill, the current version of section 489.1 of the Code, which deals with the restitution of property, also continues to apply to anything seized under a warrant for which the application was made before the date Bill S‑4 receives Royal Assent.
Clause 78.1 requires that the Minister of Justice initiate one or more independent reviews of the use of remote proceedings in criminal justice matters, which must begin within three years after the bill receives Royal Assent, and report to Parliament. Clause 78.2 requires that a parliamentary review of the same issue take place at the start of the fifth year after the bill receives Royal Assent.
Bill S‑4 comes into force 30 days after the bill receives Royal Assent.
(6.4 MB, 211 pages), Final report, June 2017. See also Laura Barnett et al., Legislative Summary of Bill C‑75: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Publication no. 42-1-C75-E, Library of Parliament, 25 July 2019. [ Return to text ] (368 KB, 36 pages)," Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 57, No. 3, Fall 2020, pp. 841–845. [ Return to text ] (368 KB, 36 pages)," Osgoode Hall Law Journal, Vol. 57, No. 3, Fall 2020, p. 843. [ Return to text ]| Amended Section 487.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Clause 22 of Bill S‑4) | Applicable Section(s) of the Criminal Code | Type of Warrant or Order |
|---|---|---|
| 487.1(1)(a) | 83.222(1) | Warrant for the seizure of copies of terrorist propaganda publications for sale or distribution. |
| 487.1(1)(b) | 83.223(1) | Order for the custodian of a computer system that stores and makes available terrorist propaganda to:
|
| 487.1(1)(c) | 117.04(1) | Warrant for the seizure of a weapon, prohibited device, ammunition, prohibited ammunition or explosive substance. |
| 487.1(1)(d) | 164(1) | Warrant for the seizure of copies of voyeuristic recordings, intimate images, obscene publications, child pornography, or an advertisement of sexual services or conversion therapy. |
| 487.1(1)(e) | 164.1(1) | Order for the custodian of a computer system that stores and makes available voyeuristic recordings, intimate images, child pornography or an advertisement of sexual services or conversion therapy to:
|
| 487.1(1)(f) | 320(1) | Warrant for the seizure of copies of hate propaganda publications for sale or distribution. |
| 487.1(1)(g) | 320.1(1) | Order for the custodian of a computer system that stores and makes available hate propaganda to:
|
| 487.1(1)(h) | 320.29(1) | Warrant to obtain blood samples to determine blood alcohol or blood drug concentration. |
| 487.1(1)(i) | 395(1) | Warrant to search for valuable minerals. |
| 487.1(1)(j) | 462.32(1) | Warrant for the seizure of proceeds of crime. |
| 487.1(1)(k) | 462.33(3) | Restraint order prohibiting the disposal or altering of property. |
| 487.1(1)(l) | 487(1) | Warrant to search for and seize evidence related to the commission of an offence. |
| 487.1(1)(m) | 487.01(1) | General warrant to use a particular device, investigative technique or procedure, as long as it does not authorize the observation of a person by means of a television camera or other similar electronic device. |
| 487.1(1)(n) | 487.01(5.2) | Extension to a general warrant issued under section 487.01(1). The application must be submitted by means that produce a writing (new section 487.1(4)). |
| 487.1(1)(o) | 487.013–487.018 |
|
| 487.1(1)(p) | 487.019(3) | Revocation or variation of a production order. |
| 487.1(1)(q) | 487.0191(1) | Order prohibiting disclosure of a preservation order or production order. |
| 487.1(1)(r) | 487.0191(4) | Revocation or variation of an order prohibiting disclosure under section 487.0191(1). |
| 487.1(1)(s) | 487.05(1) | Warrant to take bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis. |
| 487.1(1)(t) | 487.092(1) | Warrant for a handprint, footprint, foot impression, teeth impression or a print or impression of another body part. |
| 487.1(1)(u) | 487.3(1) | Order denying access to information related to a warrant, order or authorization. |
| 487.1(1)(v) | 487.3(4) | Application to terminate or vary an order under section 487.3(1). |
| 487.1(1)(w) | 492.1(1) | Warrant for a tracking device on a thing or vehicle. |
| 487.1(1)(x) | 492.1(2) | Warrant for a tracking device on a person. |
| 487.1(1)(y) | 492.1(7) | Warrant for the covert removal of a tracking device. |
| 487.1(1)(z) | 492.2(1) | Warrant to obtain transmission data using a transmission data recorder. |
Sources:
Table prepared by the Library of Parliament using data obtained from Bill S‑4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID‑19 response and other measures), 44th Parliament, 1st Session (S.C. 2022, c. 17); and Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46.
| New Section of the Criminal Code (Clause 46 of Bill S‑4) | Type of Proceeding | Appearance by Videoconference | Appearance by Audioconference | Related Sections of the Criminal Code and Clauses of Bill S‑4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 715.231 | Preliminary inquiry | Court may allow, with consent of prosecutor and accused. | No express power to allow. |
|
| 715.232 | Trial for a summary conviction offence | Court may allow, with consent of:
|
No express power to allow. |
|
| 715.233 | Trial for an indictable offence | Court may allow, with consent of prosecutor and accused, except when evidence is being presented to a jury. | No express power to allow. |
|
| 715.234 | Plea | Court may allow, with consent of prosecutor and accused. | Court may allow, with consent of prosecutor and accused, if court is satisfied that:
|
|
| 5.235 | Sentencing | Court may allow, with consent of prosecutor and accused. | Court may allow, with consent of prosecutor and accused, if videoconferencing is not readily available. |
|
| 715.24 | Other proceedings not expressly provided for | Court may allow. | Court may allow. |
|
Sources:
Table prepared by the Library of Parliament using data obtained from Bill S‑4, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Identification of Criminals Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (COVID‑19 response and other measures), 44th Parliament, 1st Session (S.C. 2022, c. 17); and Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C‑46.
© Library of Parliament